Bush's Iraqi Platitudes

[RandFan]

But that's the biggest problem, RF - this entire effort was a mistake from the beginning.

That's your opinion. I don't agree at all.

Certainly no one expects to invade a country without casualties, but consider the amount of casualties incurred after Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. THAT should have been the flag to everyone (including apologists) that this administration didn't know what they were doing.

No, I don't agree with that at all. And I really resent that I either agree with you or I'm an apologist. I don't try to bully anyone into agreeing with my position. Why must others do so?

Granted many Presidents have made mistakes that cost lives, but I don't think anyone can claim that any of the Presidents you mentioned lost those lives on a whim OR because they invaded a country completely UNRELATED to an attack on the U.S.

I don't at all agree with your characterization. Saddam had not been in compliance and had obfuscated for 12 years. He was considered a threat by most and there was reason to remove him forcibly.

Only time will tell if the venture is worthless. Would you still consider it a worthwhile venture if we incubate Democracy in Iraq only to have them democratically demand our withdrawal - even from the military bases we're planning on occupying for decades?

ABSOLUTELY! I only hope that Democracy take root. Saddam was toppled and the people have been given a great opportunity. I'm very happy about that.

What if Iraq's democratic majority is hostile to Western governments? What if all that oil (and Halliburton's interests) are denied us and the Iraqi people decide to just call it Even-Steven? A good trade? Are we willing to tell Iraq - "We'll forget all you owe us for liberating you if you'll promise not to nail us to the wall for all the things we've done wrong (illegal invasion, human-rights abuses, the death of thousands of innocents, torture, secret prisons, etc)?

No such endeavor is with out risk. Clearly you don't think the risk worth it. I do.

I hope in the least that my opinion can be respected.

 

[Year Zero]

Actually Saddam was not considered a threat, not only by his neighbors, but even Colin Powell himself, prior to 9-11.


"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Feb. 24, 2001


Starting in 1997, Russia, China, France and several other nations brought up a resolution in the security council to declare Iraq in compliance with the sanctions- in order to end them. This was based on the UNSCOM inspections which determined that Iraq had destroyed its WMD arsenal and dismantled its nuclear program. The UNMOVIK program was basically saying the same thing but the administration decided that the threat was still there and they could not wait for the inspections to finish.

 

[RandFan]

Actually Saddam was not considered a threat, not only by his neighbors, but even Colin Powell himself, prior to 9-11.

"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Feb. 24, 2001

Starting in 1997, Russia, China, France and several other nations brought up a resolution in the security council to declare Iraq in compliance with the sanctions- in order to end them. This was based on the UNSCOM inspections which determined that Iraq had destroyed its WMD arsenal and dismantled its nuclear program. The UNMOVIK program was basically saying the same thing but the administration decided that the threat was still there and they could not wait for the inspections to finish.

Saddam could have complied. He had been caught having hidden materials for WMD. Bottom line is that he didn't comply. The rest is history.

 

[Year Zero]

Saddam could have complied. He had been caught having hidden materials for WMD. Bottom line is that he didn't comply. The rest is history.

If he didn't comply we would have found something don't you think? Actually the UNMOVIK inspectors would have found something before they were forced to leave due to the war.

He did indeed comply. He only tried to conceal weapons in 1991, until he became convinced that the UN was on the level when they said the sanctions would be lifted if the weapons were destroyed. UNSCOM confirmed 96% of his weapons destroyed and the nuclear program dismantled. The remaining 4% was said to be destroyed, which we now know to be true at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. Also before the war, Saddam even destroyed his conventional Al-Samoud missiles even though these were not in violation of the resolution. They also agreed to let the UNMOVIK inspectors anywhere they wanted.

"“It’s sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent confidence about WMD existence, but zero certainty about where they are.” - Hans Blix

 

[RandFan]

He did indeed comply. He only tried to conceal weapons in 1991, until he became convinced that the UN was on the level when they said the sanctions would be lifted if the weapons were destroyed.

Funny that he played games for years. Odd way of complying. This is just nonsense. Did he have WMD before the invasion? No. That doesn't mean he complied. On the contrary he was found time and again to be in breech by the UN. 1441 was passed to give Saddam a final opportunity and he still didn't comply.

It was always in Saddam's control. He needed to follow the requirements of the conditional surrender of the first Gulf War. He failed to follow those requirements. Perhaps he didn't want to lose face. Perhaps he found the idea of inspectors in his country offensive but he didn't follow the requirements.

 

[Year Zero]

Funny that he played games for years. Odd way of complying. This is just nonsense. Did he have WMD before the invasion? No. That doesn't mean he complied. On the contrary he was found time and again to be in breech by the UN. 1441 was passed to give Saddam a final opportunity and he still didn't comply.

Perhaps you would like to explain those "games" because Scott Ritter, who lead the UNSCOM missions, along with several other involved people who were also involvedi the inspections, say otherwise.

It was always in Saddam's control. He needed to follow the requirements of the conditional surrender of the first Gulf War. He failed to follow those requirements. Perhaps he didn't want to lose face. Perhaps he found the idea of inspectors in his country offensive but he didn't follow the requirements.

Once again, several inspectors confirm that Saddam DID comply with the requirements, and that the CIA deliberately tried to hijack the UNSCOM inspections. UNSCOM oversaw the destruction of 96% of the weapons and the dismantling of the nuclear program. As for the "unaccounted" weapons, these weapons were said to have been destroyed, only UNSCOM had not been present when this happened. They did search for these weapons, never finding them.

After thousands of innocent Iraqis being killed, both directly and due to sanctions, we now know that this was right. Now you can see why American credibility has taken a nose dive. The Iraqi regime was telling the truth, the American regime was lying. Plain and simple.

 

[RandFan]

The Iraqi regime was telling the truth, the American regime was lying. Plain and simple.

Yeah, the whole UN material breech thing was a ploy....riiiiight! You can continue to demand that Iraq was complying with the requirements of the UN but the facts are there in black and white.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

 

[Year Zero]

Yeah, the whole UN material breech thing was a ploy....riiiiight! You can continue to demand that Iraq was complying with the requirements of the UN but the facts are there in black and white.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

The UNSCOM inspectors to this day say that they were in compliance. Now they can say this with full confidence, although it has cost many Iraqis their lives. You might also want to note the DATE on that report. It just happened to be written about a MONTH after the idea of an Iraq invasion was first mentioned publicly. When the inspectors went back in, they were given full access to Iraq's facilities including palaces(though it is stupid to think they would store such weapons there) and still couldn't find anything.

As Hans Blix said:

“It’s sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent confidence about WMD existence, but zero certainty about where they are.”


Did this not come from the same State Department that claimed Saddam had thousands of barrels of Anthrax, VX, etc., and that he had reconstituted his nuclear program? Did this not come from the same State Department that claimed that "Iraqi intelligence agents routinely meet with Bin Laden in Afghanistan"?

And then comes the $64,000 question- Why switch the rational to "he was a really evil guy" when all those resolution-violating weapons never showed up?
Now it's mostly the "this is the central front in the war on terror", and even that is a lie since Al Qaeda volunteers are only going their due to the invasion plus the fact that the majority of the insurgency is non-Wahhabist and home-grown.


Where's the accountability?

 

[RandFan]

The UNSCOM inspectors to this day say that they were in compliance. Now they can say this with full confidence, although it has cost many Iraqis their lives. You might also want to note the DATE on that report. It just happened to be written about a MONTH after the idea of an Iraq invasion was first mentioned publicly. When the inspectors went back in, they were given full access to Iraq's facilities including palaces(though it is stupid to think they would store such weapons there) and still couldn't find anything.

As Hans Blix said:

“It’s sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent confidence about WMD existence, but zero certainty about where they are.”


Did this not come from the same State Department that claimed Saddam had thousands of barrels of Anthrax, VX, etc., and that he had reconstituted his nuclear program? Did this not come from the same State Department that claimed that "Iraqi intelligence agents routinely meet with Bin Laden in Afghanistan"?

And then comes the $64,000 question- Why switch the rational to "he was a really evil guy" when all those resolution-violating weapons never showed up?
Now it's mostly the "this is the central front in the war on terror", and even that is a lie since Al Qaeda volunteers are only going their due to the invasion plus the fact that the majority of the insurgency is non-Wahhabist and home-grown.


Where's the accountability?

Still nothing to counter the fact that Iraq was found to be in material breach.

 

[RandFan]

Hey zero, it's late and I'm tired and I have to work all day tomorrow so I won't be able to respond for awhile. You have the last say on the matter.

I appreciate your posts and willingness to keep a civil tone.

See ya on the flip side,

RandFan,

P.S. I'm right and your wrong.

 

[Year Zero]

Still nothing to counter the fact that Iraq was found to be in material breach.

This report was written before the new resolution to resume inspections was drafted. So how can you assert that this is evidence of anything?

Where are the facts that he WAS in material breach? Because a lot of people involved in enforcing those very resolutions, in fact entire governments, seem to think otherwise. The US commited to military action WITHOUT a security council resolution to do so. The last resolution passed said that military action would be a last resort; UNMOVIK inspectors were allowed in and given access to everything. They found no violations before they were forced to leave because Bush decided that we "could not wait".

Moreover, many people involved with the sanctions and the inspections allege that the US deliberately used the inspection resolution for a purpose other than it was intended for- to create the conditions for regime change via an uprising. These efforts have been routinely criticized before Bush was even president. Furthermore, the idea that Iraq's alleged(and unproven) violation of UN resolutions is laughable when one considers that Israel has and in some cases violated somewhere around 60 UN resolutions, and has often received backing by the US in these matters.

People that say that the UN is ineffective or corrupt are correct. However, the UN is not corrupt simply when it doesn't dance to the tune of the US. In fact the UN is corrupt primarily because it DOES dance for the US so much.

 

[Year Zero]

Hey zero, it's late and I'm tired and I have to work all day tomorrow so I won't be able to respond for awhile. You have the last say on the matter.

I appreciate your posts and willingness to keep a civil tone.

No problem. Believe me, remaining civil in this environment is no problem. I've dealt with debates against rabid Communists, Anarchists, Christian Fundamentalists, and even self-proclaimed "Neo-Nazis". The issue of Saddam's record is of special interest to me because I have spent a lot of time studying the 20th century history of Yugoslavia and there are a lot of parallels here; it's an excellent case study in inter-ethnic/religious strife caused by prolonged propaganda. You will find very few voices of reason in discussions about Yugoslavia when you question someone's claims of "genocide"(and I have questioned everyone's claims in that issue).

 

[Mark]

Still nothing to counter the fact that Iraq was found to be in material breach.

So...everyone thought he was a threat, except, well, um, turns out that wasn't true either.

The U.S. and Israel have been in breach of U.N. resolutions too...who gets to invade us? China has been in violation...when do we invade them? Iran? North Korea? We gonna be some busy little beavers...

Face it: there never was a valid excuse for this war. The sooner we acknowldge that publicly, the sooner we can build a real coalition and end this thing.

 

[Mark]

You will find very few voices of reason in discussions about Yugoslavia when you question someone's claims of "genocide"(and I have questioned everyone's claims in that issue).

I know...I keep questioning the existence of slavery in this country and everyone just giggles at me. I have also never seen any evidence to support the idea that those so-called "Indians" ever lived here at all, let alone were slaughtered. Why won't people listen? It's a cruel world, isn't it?

 

[Skeptic]

I suggest everyone go out and buy the book called NeoConned, and read the first chapter interview with Jude Wanniski about Saddam Hussein. The facts show that Saddam Hussein routinely worked with Shiites and Kurds, including is later enemy Jalal Talabani.

Right.

And Saddam "Mr. Honesty" Hussein wouldn't just lie to a gullible western reporter, would he? It's not as if he ever engaged in propaganda, or anything...

Saddam's government, to the last days, had Shiites in MANY high-ranking positions in the government;

Well, to say that Iraq under Saddam had a "government"--in the sense of an accountable body responsible for the wellbeing of the citizens--is quite a stretch. The word you're looking for is "murderous thugs with power", or perhaps "Saddam's toadies".

By the way, Pierre Laval and Marshall Petain were in high-ranking positions in the Nazi government (or more precisely, the puppet Vichy government.) Gee, I guess France was never really occupied or opressed by Nazi Germany.

There have been Kurdish and Shiite victims of the regime, but these were often terrorists(as in Al Dawa) or insurgents.

Especially those women and children Saddam gassed to death with nerve gas.

What about gassing Kurds? Total B.S.

Yes, just like that other zionist neo-con invention, the gassing of the jews in WWII... neither really happened, you know.

It's shameful, how the jews, I mean zionists, I mean neocons, invent all those gassing stories against anybody who stands up to them.

You have to dig deep, you have to sift through a lot of political tripe, but when you get right down to it Saddam and the Baathist party do not even remotely resemble the charicature that the Western media concocted for them.

*sniff*

Poor, misundestood murderous dictator!

*sniff*

 

[Year Zero]

I suggest everyone go out and buy the book called NeoConned, and read the first chapter interview with Jude Wanniski about Saddam Hussein. The facts show that Saddam Hussein routinely worked with Shiites and Kurds, including is later enemy Jalal Talabani.

Right.

And Saddam "Mr. Honesty" Hussein wouldn't just lie to a gullible western reporter, would he? It's not as if he ever engaged in propaganda, or anything...

Nobody familiar with his credentials would refer to Jude Wanniski as a "gullible western reporter". Second, Wanniski's claims are not based on an interview between him and Saddam Hussein. Wanniski has studied Iraq and talked to hundreds of Iraqis about these subjects, and has several Iraqi defectors as close friends. Re-read this thread if you want to see some of the sources he cites.

Well, to say that Iraq under Saddam had a "government"--in the sense of an accountable body responsible for the wellbeing of the citizens--is quite a stretch. The word you're looking for is "murderous thugs with power", or perhaps "Saddam's toadies".

Can you provide any proof that this "group of murderous" thugs in power were any worse than dozens of such groups throughout the world today and in the 20th century, many of whom like Saddam were supplied by and/or put in power by the United States? At what point does the American government get to be referred to as "muderous thugs with power"? We've killed a lot more people in the last century than Saddam ever did.

By the way, Pierre Laval and Marshall Petain were in high-ranking positions in the Nazi government (or more precisely, the puppet Vichy government.) Gee, I guess France was never really occupied or opressed by Nazi Germany.

That's an illogical comparison. What would you say if there were openly practicing, self-proclaimed Jews serving in high ranking positions of the Nazi party? Second, their is a massive amount of anti-Semitic literature left over from the Third Reich that nobody, including Holocaust revisionist, deny in terms of authenticity. That is not the case with the Baathis party. The Baathist Party was primarily concerned with the concept of a unified Iraqi people under a secular government. This may have been unrealistic, but it is not necessarily anti-Shiite or Kurd.

Especially those women and children Saddam gassed to death with nerve gas.

We've already refuted that in here, read the thread again.

Yes, just like that other zionist neo-con invention, the gassing of the jews in WWII... neither really happened, you know.

Ah drag out the Holocaust revisionism issue to protect the an unrelated claim. Read my previous statement about my responses to deniers of Communist genocide in this thread. The logical fallacy here is only too obvious.

Both revisionists and the people who question the Halabja story claim a lack of evidence ergo they think the same way!!! WRONG!!

It's shameful, how the jews, I mean zionists, I mean neocons, invent all those gassing stories against anybody who stands up to them.

Really? Let's compare the claims: The Nazis are said to have killed Jews using Zyklon B, in GAS CHAMBERS. HCN inside an enclosed space will KILL you. Even revisionists agree on that.

The victims at Halabja were mainly alleged to have been killed by chemical weapons delivered on a battlefield primarily through artillery shells. This method of deploying gas has always been unreliable, dating back to WWI. In the first documented case of Iraq using gas(mustard gas), a similar problem happened in the same type of terrain where the gas cloud drifted right back onto Iraqi positions.

Unlike HCN, Mustard Gas is nowhere near as lethal, it is a blister agent. I have written more on this earlier in the thread.

The second major difference is that the biggest skeptic of these claims is Stephen Pelletiere, and his position at the time gives him a lot more credibility than HRW. Holocaust revisionists cannot claim that there were high intelligence officials in the US, British, or Soviet governments that were refuting Holocaust claims.

*sniff*

Poor, misundestood murderous dictator!

*sniff*

Somehow you think the label murderous dictator, if repeated enough, can refute the facts. Also the label isn't even complete; it should be the Poor Misunderstood Murderous Dictator that was Put in Power and Aided both Materially and Morally by the United States of America at One Time or PMMDPPAMMUSAOT.


This still does not justify the war, which has killed just as many if not possibly more Iraqis than Saddam(particularly if you don't count the armed insurgents he and the United States have killed). Can we refer to the President as "murderous" now even though he is not by definition a dictator?

 

[Year Zero]

Before we continue, a little warning about constant inaccurate comparisons to Holocaust revisionists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[billydkid]

Huh? When did I jump down someones throat for holding the wrong opinion?

Maybe I have you confused with someone else. Sorry if so. At any rate, I was only joking with you.

 

[Skeptic]

Second, their is a massive amount of anti-Semitic literature left over from the Third Reich that nobody, including Holocaust revisionist, deny in terms of authenticity.

Are you kidding? The #1 tool of holocaust revisionism is the "no written order" canard--the attempt to claim that, because there isn't a scrap of paper signed by Hitler saying "I hereby authorize the final solution", then it is all a zionist lie. They also make a big fuss about the fact that the contemporary documents usually use cover words like "resettlement" or "special treatment" instead of "mass murder".

In a somewhat similar vein, in the 1930s and 40s, a few pro-Communist historians in the west had endevoured to "disprove" the "lies" about the Ukraine famine and the gulags by noting that the official documents of the USSR tend not to mention them.

You're doing the exact same "literary denial gambit": Saddam can gas thousands, but as long as official documents of the dictator's ruling party talk about the "unity of the Iraqi people", you think this somehow makes such genocides less likely. Nonsense on stilts. It doesn't make it any less likely than the fact that Pravda in the 30s talked about "record harvests" and "freedom" all the time means that the Ukraine famine or the gulags never happened.

You are attempting to deny a dictator's genocide as propaganda because the dictator's press says the opposite--precisely the same worthless "logical" argument holocaust- and famine-deniers are using.

Nice going there, sport.

Ah drag out the Holocaust revisionism issue to protect the an unrelated claim.Read my previous statement about my responses to deniers of Communist genocide in this thread. The logical fallacy here is only too obvious.

No, it's not.

You're all using the exact same method for your denial: you believe the dictator's propaganda (whether it is about "resettling" the jews, "record harvests" in the Ukraine, or "unity of the Iraqi people" in Saddam's Iraq) and then dismiss the undeniable horrific reality because it does not fit with that propaganda.

Both revisionists and the people who question the Halabja story claim a lack of evidence ergo they think the same way!!! WRONG!!!

RIGHT!!!, actually. For you both "question" it for the same reasons. See above.

In any case, you don't seem to realize that your own claims disprove what you say. Whatever Saddam said about the "unity of Iraq", he had not the slightest problem of throwing anybody who opposed him into jail or torture or death.

He gassed Halabja, rather obviously, not because he wanted to kill all Kurds on the face of the planet, but because those Kurds, in his view, opposed him politically. That Kurds who sucked his penis were promoted is besides the point.

Really? Let's compare the claims: The Nazis are said to have killed Jews using Zyklon B, in GAS CHAMBERS. HCN inside an enclosed space will KILL you. Even revisionists agree on that.

Well, maybe the revisionists agree the jews were alleged to have been killed in gas chambers--just like you agree the Kurds were alleged to have been killed by gas shells--but they deny the jews were really killed in gas chambers, just like you deny the Kurds were really killed with gas shells.

And why? Well, since they "know" by the "lack of documentary evidence" that no final solution had ever occured, the whole issue of revisionists is to find some pseudoscientific reason why the gas chambers couldn't have worked as "jewish atrocity propaganda" says they did. Incidentally, that the gas concentration could not have been made high enough to kill--an argument you seem somewhat familiar with--is a popular one with revisionists, too.

You are doing the same thing: now that official state propaganda has "proven" Saddam wouldn't do such a nasty thing, talking as it does about the unity of all Iraqi (and similar B.S.), Mr. armchair chemistry expert had decided nerve gas could not kill this way, so that settles it. Must be jewish, I mean anti-communist, I mean neo-con atrocity propaganda.

Somehow you think the label murderous dictator, if repeated enough, can refute the facts.

But you didn't present any facts. You presented irrelevant evidence (that some Kurds were promoted by him, forgetting that the point was that Saddam was fighting those Kurds who opposed him politically), official state propaganda, and armchair chemistry as "evidence" to deny the genocide of thousands.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but let me guess, you're probably proud of what an "independent thinker" you are for not buying "atrocity propaganda"... another point of similarity, incidentally, between you and holocaust or communist atrocity deniers.

 

[Mephisto]

No, I don't agree with that at all. And I really resent that I either agree with you or I'm an apologist. I don't try to bully anyone into agreeing with my position. Why must others do so?

First off, RF, I didn't mean to infer that YOU personally were an apologist - just that some people can't even agree that mistakes have been made - you are certainly NOT one of those people. My apologies if I caused this misunderstanding.

I don't at all agree with your characterization. Saddam had not been in compliance and had obfuscated for 12 years. He was considered a threat by most and there was reason to remove him forcibly.

That is true, but in spite of the fact that Saddam had not been in complete compliance, I don't believe anyone in the middle east considered him a threat with the possible exception of Iran. The very reasons that kept the frictions between Iraq and Iran were what kept Iraq free of religious extremists. Saddam's regime was indeed a horrible one, but he was only a danger to his own people and possibly Iran. Noteworthy that Iran never thought Saddam capable of military actions outside his own borders, don't you think? They were a LOT closer to the problem than we were.

ABSOLUTELY! I only hope that Democracy take root. Saddam was toppled and the people have been given a great opportunity. I'm very happy about that.

Yes, and I can be happy with you that the Iraqi people have been given a great opportunity, they have suffered greatly.

But, I think a good analogy for their opportunity is finding a $20 bill on the sidewalk. Has that ever happened to you? Doesn't it feel GREAT to find something valuable? My elation is always shortlived, however, since I always think more about the luck of the person who lost the $20 to begin with. Someone will miss that money, and will be poorer for it. Too bad it has cost the American people a lot more than $20, and the worst thing about it is - that money was taken out of our pockets by a liar and a thief and left on the sidewalk to be found by the people he chose. The simple fact that he's used so many different reasons for taking that money out of our pockets to begin with indicates to me that Bush is more like the teenager stealing from Mommy's purse to buy cigarettes than a powerful foreign affairs expert with a vision.

No such endeavor is with out risk. Clearly you don't think the risk worth it. I do.

I don't think ANY RISK is worth lying to the American people about! It was clear that Bush used the WMD card to do what he wanted because he KNEW that the American people would NOT support the liberation of Iraq unless a imminent threat was contrived. This whole affair stinks of treachery and deceit and it smells from the top down and I can't understand how people believe two wrongs make a right. Here's a bad example.

If you're a petty gang-leader who orders a drive-by shooting on someone's house and manages to hit an intruder in that home threatening the people you initially intended to shoot - did you do a good thing? No.

I hope in the least that my opinion can be respected.

Your opinions are ALWAYS respected, RF! That is why everyone engages you so readily, we can count on well thought-out answers with a cordial reply (as opposed to, "HAW, HAW, HAW, Lookit her, she's screwing her son!").

As a matter of fact, there are MANY JREFers who stand on the other side of the imaginary line that has been drawn for us whose opinions I absolutely respect and look forward to reading. Your opinions are valuable to me (and they should be to others) as they often provide a viewpoint I hadn't considered. I'd like to believe that we can shake hands and be friends in the middle of the road.

Unfortunately, the middle of the road is a dangerous place for anyone and the moderates of each side stand to be run over by those extremists from both ends of the political spectrum. It won't matter if you're run over by a hearse with Cindy Sheehan's dead son in it, or by an M-1 Abrams driven by big Dick Cheney - you're still flat and dead.