Rumsfeld's message for Saddam

[Zero]

Really? Based on what evidence? More likely the majority is moderate to right.

Try again, and this time look at the facts. Bush wouldn't have to lie constantly if Americans actually agreed with him.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, and as we all know the geopolitic of that area has stayed static since 1984 so its an apples to apples comparison.

That's right, what was right then is wrong now.

 

[Nasarius]

Try again, and this time look at the facts. Bush wouldn't have to lie constantly if Americans actually agreed with him.

A large majority of registered voters are registered Democrat. Sorry, don't have a link, this is from a poli sci textbook I had last year. Google for it; it's fact.

 

[Samus]

KelvinG: Which also shows why there is never any accountability in politics. The current administration can simply shrug their shoulders and say "That had nothing to do with us."

As an aside, you bring up an interesting issue in the American political system. Although I think "accountability" might be the wrong label for it...

Our executive branch of government is headed by someone who has a relatively short term (four years, believe it or not, isn't a long time when you're at the top). We also have a term limit for that position. As such, you end up with a severe lack of continuity from one administration to the next. We have a lot of civil servants to help with bureaucratic continuity, but all the key players come and go as presidents do. The constitution has set things up this way.

A side effect of this is often a lack of foresight. Presidents don't need to have foresight, because long-term effects won't come to fruition until the administration is gone. Supporting someone you might later depose (like Heussein, or bin Laden) is short-term thinking, a hallmark of our foreign policy decisions.

On the other hand, sometimes the U.S. isn't supporting someone they like, but rather, the lesser of two evils. Usama bin Laden more appropriately fits into this category. The U.S. provided him training to fulfill a goal they had at the time because he and his merry men were the most feasible "allies" at the time. Of course, as we have come to learn, this was a bad decision. Had the administration at the time considered long-term consequences, they may have reached a different course of action. Then again, presidents are on the spot to "make things happen", not to plan for the next couple decades.

Interesting situation, indeed. Thoughts?

 

[Samus]

Nasarius: A large majority of registered voters are registered Democrat. Sorry, don't have a link, this is from a poli sci textbook I had last year. Google for it; it's fact.

There are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans, that's a fact. To my knowledge, it is not a large majority. Rather, it's more like 5-7 percentage points. I don't have any numbers handy.

Edited to correct bbCode incompetency.

 

[BTox]

There are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans, that's a fact. To my knowledge, it is not a large majority. Rather, it's more like 5-7 percentage points. I don't have any numbers handy.

Edited to correct bbCode incompetency.

If that is a fact, that does not answer the question as to which is the majority - moderate-to-right or moderate-to-left.

 

[BTox]

Try again, and this time look at the facts. Bush wouldn't have to lie constantly if Americans actually agreed with him.

Care to supply any "facts"? All I see from you are ill-informed opinions.

 

[Samus]

svero: Commander cool then goes on to say that rumsfeld lying about CWs in 84' is not evidence that the current administration is ok when it comes to lying about CWs today.

Rumsfeld didn't "lie" about CWs in '84. He was sent over as a special envoy. At the time, the administration decided that the forgive & forget approach was the correct one; that we shouldn't hold Iraq accountable for its use of CWs because the potential political gain with befriending them. In hindsight, that was a pretty bad decision, because the U.S. rather quickly learned that Heussein played the game better than we did.

 

[Samus]

BTox: If that is a fact, that does not answer the question as to which is the majority - moderate-to-right or moderate-to-left.

Or, if neither of those groups have a true majority, and those we call moderates are able to lean left or right as they see fit.

 

[svero]

Rumsfeld didn't "lie" about CWs in '84. He was sent over as a special envoy. At the time, the administration decided that the forgive & forget approach was the correct one; that we shouldn't hold Iraq accountable for its use of CWs because the potential political gain with befriending them. In hindsight, that was a pretty bad decision, because the U.S. rather quickly learned that Heussein played the game better than we did.

Your honor I didn't lie about the murder! I just helped him bury the body and didn't mention it to the police.

 

[Samus]

svero: Your honor I didn't lie about the murder! I just helped him bury the body and didn't mention it to the police.

I still don't see where Rumsfeld actually lied. His purpose as a special envoy, as with all special envoys, was to build relations. To my knowledge, he has never denied that.

The U.S. condemning CWs, but still wanting Iraq as an ally, is the equivalent of us condemning Israel/Palestine violence, but still wanting to keep Israel as an ally. Neither are "lies".

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I forgot who but just recently somewas quoted as saying " The dictator who's hand we shake today will be our enemy tommorrow". This seems to be a fact that America's leaders never seem to learn, from Castro ( who we supported) through Pinochet,Samosa...and tens more. Saddam was a creature WE made from an sadistic, meglomanic into a danger that shook world politics. We gave him money, weapons and chemical weapons technology, machine tools used to manafacture same...all courtesy of St. Ronald.Hindsight is foresight...bla bla bla

 

[crackmonkey]

We didn't MAKE Saddam, for God's sake. You make it sound as if every dictator the US has had any contact with is a creature of our making. We didn't have much of a selection of Iraqi leaders to deal with - there was only one, and he was psychotic. The French and Russians took quite a liking to him, though... I suppose you could say Saddam was their creation if you really wanted to foist him on a nation.
The point is, we have to deal with the leaders of nations whether we approve of them or not. Would you prefer that the US merely ignores any nation whose government doesn't measure up to our lofty standards?

 

[Troll]

I forgot who but just recently somewas quoted as saying " The dictator who's hand we shake today will be our enemy tommorrow". This seems to be a fact that America's leaders never seem to learn, from Castro ( who we supported) through Pinochet,Samosa...and tens more. Saddam was a creature WE made from an sadistic, meglomanic into a danger that shook world politics. We gave him money, weapons and chemical weapons technology, machine tools used to manafacture same...all courtesy of St. Ronald.Hindsight is foresight...bla bla bla

Read crackmonkey's last reply to you. And then think hard about what you said about weapons as well. I mean we don't make SCUDs, ak-47s, T-70 series tanks, so you have to wonder who really armed the guy as well.

 

[shuize]

Read crackmonkey's last reply to you. And then think hard about what you said about weapons as well. I mean we don't make SCUDs, ak-47s, T-70 series tanks, so you have to wonder who really armed the guy as well.

Not to mention Migs or Mirage jets ....

Did old Iraq have any weapon systems that didn't come from Europe or the old Soviet Union? Just curious.

 

[Jon_in_london]

There's not many references to it, and they're not necessarily 'top' web sites. (And ironically, some of the few references to Iran's use of gas. blah blah blah

This is interesting....

So if Iran DID use gas on the Iraqi village then the US is justified for supporting Iraq's capability to retaliate in kind but then I guess he never used WMD against his own people after all?

Well, they do say chemical warfare is ceratinly a double-edged sword!

 

[Jon_in_london]

Did old Iraq have any weapon systems that didn't come from Europe or the old Soviet Union? Just curious.

I certainly havent seen anything suggesting that significant converntional arms were sent to Iraq by the US. I have seen rumblings about trucks as well as communications and tech equipment as well as more nefarious NBC stuff.

17 British companies sold stuff to Iraq though. And we are still selling sophisticated stuff like night vision kit to Syria. Its the arms trade grand!

 

[Segnosaur]

Would you care to enumerate in full all the particular threats Iran was posing to US national security which necessitated supporting a regime which was gassing its own civilians.

Iran was (and still is) an Islamic fundamentalist state, and would be quite eager to see their brand of fundamentalism spread to other countries. In the past they have been quite willing to support terrorism, plus remember that they were involved in the hostage taking at the US embassy.

I believe that there are certain dangers involved with fundamentalist states that don't apply to other dictatorships:
- Willing to go to extreme measures, even if it runs against self-preservation
- Less ability to negotiate with them (since they don't care what the 'rest of the world' thinks)
- Control does not rest with 'one man'. As such, power can pass from one person to another seemlessly (unlike other dictatorships, like Lybia, where the top person can be 'taken out')

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

To the folks who object to my analysis that we made Saddam....reread the quote. The raw material was already there we in fact DID transform him from a minor regional irritant to a Very dangerous quantity that could upset the "Dynamic " ( faulty as it is ) in the middle East. If we had refrained from propping up the madman (or at least applied judiciously the weapons that he needed to neutralize Iran..) both subsequent wars would have not come to pass. Use your brain for criisakes. We did the same to many fiends....feed me Semore

 

[rikzilla]

And, of course, we all realize that Rumsfeld was acting independently, and not simply carrying out the orders he was given. So, it's quite easy to blame the Bush administration for everything under the sun because of a relationship the Reagan administration wanted to build. Clearly, Rumsfeld loves Heussein.

The article you posted boasts a good argument for how the U.S. tends to change friends every couple decades, but is irrelevant when discussing how the current players feel about CW/WMD/Heussein.

So, it is not how what administration *really* thinks, as you put it. You're just trying to spin it that way to make the administration look bad and make yourself feel better. The administration does enough things to make themselves look bad without you inventing more things.

Yes CC!

Using the logic of this argument we must remain opposed to Col Qaddafi, no matter what concessions he makes. Nevermind that he has disavowed his WMD's and has decided (after watching Saddam's example) that Libya's interests are better served by rejoining the world community. No. Revenge for the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing of 1988 is far more important than the elimination of WMD's in Libya??? While I would agree that "in a perfect world" Qaddafi should stand trial for his part in the Pan Am 103 bombing... justice/revenge against this person is simply and realistically not worth the cost.

Governments are always doing the old "cost/benefit" analysis when dealing with other nations in the constantly changing geo-political situation. Pointing to 20 year old pictures of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands is less than meaningless. Usually skeptics look for context....true-believers rarely do though.

-z