With this new news

[LDF]

but apu is right.

 

Remember Bob Dole toasting Saddam in 1990.

 

It was shoert sighted foreign policy then under Reagan and Bush 1 and it is short sighted policy now under Bush 2.

that was before the 1 gulf war, so we still have to listen to excuses from the past. do you not think things have change since then.

[cwsox]

I am at work and don't have a lot of time.

 

I am getting fed up with 22 years (speakling generically) who have no recall of anything that happened beyond their memory and not studying the issue in its full complexity.

 

When Dole went to Iraq as Bush 1's representative, Saddam had already gassed the Kurds and committed all kinds of unspeakable acts. Nothing Saddam has done since hadn't happened before. 10 years of US aid to Saddam under Reagan and Bush 1 put Saddam where he is.

 

Dole in Iraq

 

 

Under late Bush 1 and Clinton all sanctions were put into place and Saddam became no greater threat than he was. But Saddam did all of his evil and became the threat he became because of US assistance.

 

In other words, if Saddam is guilty of criminal acts, every one of the Bush 2 adminsitration who served under Reagan and Bush 1 is guilty of complicity in building up Saddam and turning a blind eye to his acts of outrage because he was "someone we can work with." When the same people who created the conditions bleat on about those very same conditions, the hypocrasy is just too much to bear when lives are at stake.

 

All the elephant tears and political posturing now cannot hide the fact of who built Saddam up and who ignored his outrageous acts - the same people as are now putting American lives on the line (as well as Iraqi lives) as a direct consequence of their own policies.

 

And it is people like me who objected strenuously over US approval of Saddam all through the 80s and 1990, the same people who are getting condemned now.

 

The only thing that has changed is expediency. Saddam has been very contained as a threat to the US or other nations. This war is about $$ - contracts have already been given to Hailburton and other companies and the conflicts of intertest of Perle and others is criminal, in my opinion. This is suppsoed to be a wra on terrorism - then go get bin Laden, not go to war against a nation that had nothing to do with September 11th. And to deal with Saddam now - we had a variety of ways other than war. A whole variety of ways. It was this administration that blotched all diplomacy and has turned allies into opponents and has squandered our national moral collateral with this war. There will be prices to pay for years to come because we did not resort to the other means possible to take down Saddam.

 

Everything apu has been saying is right. I give him much credit for doing the research.

[cwsox]

so we still have to listen to excuses from the past. do you not think things have change since then.

if you want to knowledgable and educated, yes and make informed chocies, yes.. Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to making the same msitakes over and over. this country deserves better than that. And so does every living human being.

[LDF]

so we still have to listen to excuses from the past. do you not think things have change since then.

if you want to knowledgable and educated, yes and make informed chocies, yes.. Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to making the same msitakes over and over. this country deserves better than that. And so does every living human being.

so base on that, we have learned and are now taking care of those mistake.

[soxfan420]

so we still have to listen to excuses from the past. do you not think things have change since then.

if you want to knowledgable and educated, yes and make informed chocies, yes.. Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to making the same msitakes over and over. this country deserves better than that. And so does every living human being.

so base on that, we have learned and are now taking care of those mistake.

i thought we where cleaning up our mess but hmmm maybe they just are spoiled people have them other people clean up there own messes. i think we are doin a good job of correcting our mistakes.

[Soxplosion]

Saddam is going down so he know now its time to stop following the rules. We are waging war on a wellarmed maniac, which certainly isnt a good thing. This man wont be captured, he will be brought down in a hail of gunfire, perhaps from his own hand...

[LDF]

I am at work and don't have a lot of time.

 

I am getting fed up with 22 years (speakling generically) who have no recall of anything that happened beyond their memory and not studying the issue in its full complexity.

i am sure about whom you were saying this too, but i am 39 yrs ols, was a history major when i was in college many many yrs ago and and somewhat informed.

[baggio202]

Nothing. He'd change the subject like he usually does and bash the US, the President, the CIA, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. or say that they were weapons we gave Hussein in the first place. Same old boring Apu. That should answer your question LDF  . The UN would be the last group that he'd blame.

Well, CK, Saddam wouldn't be armed with weapons if we hadn't sold them all to him in the first place, now would he?

 

Who is to say that 1) the plant has made chem weapons, 2) that Blix and Co. (if given adequate time and not pressured by the West Texas moron) would have found more weapons (I personally believe they could have if given time...if there are weapons there) etc.

 

The Bush regime case for war was inadequate and they sent people off to die anyway. Sickening...absolutely sickening.

you keep bringing this up that the USA was the one to arm saddam like its a defense for your position that we shouldnt go to war ...but since we did arm the stupid bastard isnt that even more of a reason for us to disarm him???

[LDF]

Nothing. He'd change the subject like he usually does and bash the US, the President, the CIA, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. or say that they were weapons we gave Hussein in the first place. Same old boring Apu. That should answer your question LDF  . The UN would be the last group that he'd blame.

Well, CK, Saddam wouldn't be armed with weapons if we hadn't sold them all to him in the first place, now would he?

 

Who is to say that 1) the plant has made chem weapons, 2) that Blix and Co. (if given adequate time and not pressured by the West Texas moron) would have found more weapons (I personally believe they could have if given time...if there are weapons there) etc.

 

The Bush regime case for war was inadequate and they sent people off to die anyway. Sickening...absolutely sickening.

you keep bringing this up that the USA was the one to arm saddam like its a defense for your position that we shouldnt go to war ...but since we did arm the stupid bastard isnt that even more of a reason for us to disarm him???

excellent counter.

[soxfan420]

Nothing. He'd change the subject like he usually does and bash the US, the President, the CIA, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. or say that they were weapons we gave Hussein in the first place. Same old boring Apu. That should answer your question LDF  . The UN would be the last group that he'd blame.

Well, CK, Saddam wouldn't be armed with weapons if we hadn't sold them all to him in the first place, now would he?

 

Who is to say that 1) the plant has made chem weapons, 2) that Blix and Co. (if given adequate time and not pressured by the West Texas moron) would have found more weapons (I personally believe they could have if given time...if there are weapons there) etc.

 

The Bush regime case for war was inadequate and they sent people off to die anyway. Sickening...absolutely sickening.

you keep bringing this up that the USA was the one to arm saddam like its a defense for your position that we shouldnt go to war ...but since we did arm the stupid bastard isnt that even more of a reason for us to disarm him???

i agree but some people think that there is still a shot at peace but they dont have any ideas on how to go about it, when you offer someone 7 billion dollars, no punishment for killing thousands of people for disagreeing with you. i think that is has far has it goes for the only shot that peace had a chance and he refuesed. thus we go to war to remove him ourself.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

you keep bringing this up that the USA was the one to arm saddam like its a defense for your position that we shouldnt  go to war ...but since we did arm the stupid bastard isnt that even more of a reason for us to disarm him???

I just used it as a justification that we can't claim a higher moral ground in the issue as a claim for going to war. We knew he was killing his own citizens with it, yet we sold it to him anyways. Now we're coming across saying that we are the "champions of the Iraqi people" when we provided Saddam with all the weapons he needed to do whatever the f*** he pleased to his own people and we never condemned it at all.

 

Also, from 1991-1998, both Ritter and Rocke said that they got over 95% of the weapons from Iraq. So, there are a very slim amount in the country, if any. And any weapons he does have are useless goo by now because they have short shelf lives.

[soxfan420]

you keep bringing this up that the USA was the one to arm saddam like its a defense for your position that we shouldnt  go to war ...but since we did arm the stupid bastard isnt that even more of a reason for us to disarm him???

I just used it as a justification that we can't claim a higher moral ground in the issue as a claim for going to war. We knew he was killing his own citizens with it, yet we sold it to him anyways. Now we're coming across saying that we are the "champions of the Iraqi people" when we provided Saddam with all the weapons he needed to do whatever the f*** he pleased to his own people and we never condemned it at all.

 

Also, from 1991-1998, both Ritter and Rocke said that they got over 95% of the weapons from Iraq. So, there are a very slim amount in the country, if any. And any weapons he does have are useless goo by now because they have short shelf lives.

when we put him in power, we had no idea he was gonna take off the way he did.

you admit he is killing his own people, and yet you want to take no action in fixing the problem, you say peace but not one idea have you stated that was good.

[soxfan420]

you keep bringing this up that the USA was the one to arm saddam like its a defense for your position that we shouldnt  go to war ...but since we did arm the stupid bastard isnt that even more of a reason for us to disarm him???

I just used it as a justification that we can't claim a higher moral ground in the issue as a claim for going to war. We knew he was killing his own citizens with it, yet we sold it to him anyways. Now we're coming across saying that we are the "champions of the Iraqi people" when we provided Saddam with all the weapons he needed to do whatever the f*** he pleased to his own people and we never condemned it at all.

 

Also, from 1991-1998, both Ritter and Rocke said that they got over 95% of the weapons from Iraq. So, there are a very slim amount in the country, if any. And any weapons he does have are useless goo by now because they have short shelf lives.

please you dont think he can remake that s***??? once you learn something you cant unlearn something.

[Chisoxfn]

Since those weapons are useless, then why have they used Scuds, and now there are big time possibilities of Biological Weapons? That would lead me to believe that they didn't get all the weapons.

[YASNY]

Someone said that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11, when, in fact, he was indirectly responsible for it. Follow this sequence of events:

 

1. Saddam invaded Kuwait

2. Saudi Arabia, in fear that Saddam would next invaded them, asked the US to put a military presence in their country.

3. We did, and used that as a staging area to push Saddam out of Kuwait.

4. Saddam signed an agreement, treaty, whaever, agreeing to certain stipulations in return for us ending any aggressions.

5. Saddam failed to live up to his agreement, forcing us to stay in SA in case he started up again.

6. Usama bin Laden started Al Queda BECAUSE we were the infidels, occupyin his holy land.

7. Al Queda has been at war with the US ever since. And they did commit the 9/11 attrocity.

 

There is most certainly a link between Saddam and 9/11. Granted, it is an indirect link, but there is no denying his advance on Kuwait led to the 9/11 attack.

[LDF]

Someone said that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11, when, in fact, he was indirectly responsible for it.  Follow this sequence of events:

 

1.  Saddam invaded Kuwait

2.  Saudi Arabia, in fear that Saddam would next invaded them, asked the US to  put a military presence in their country.

3.  We did, and used that as a staging area to push Saddam out of Kuwait.

4.  Saddam signed an agreement, treaty, whaever, agreeing to certain stipulations in return for us ending any aggressions.

5. Saddam failed to live up to his agreement, forcing us to stay in SA in case he started up again. 

6. Usama bin Laden started Al Queda BECAUSE we were the infidels, occupyin his holy land.

7. Al Queda has been at war with the US ever since. And they did commit the 9/11 attrocity.

 

There is most certainly a link between Saddam and 9/11.  Granted, it is an indirect link, but there is no denying his advance on Kuwait led to the 9/11 attack.

it wasn't indirect but in reallity a correct reasoning of what you wrote.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

please you dont think he can remake that s***??? once you learn something you cant unlearn something.

It's very difficult to remake biological and chemical weapons if you don't have a proper environment to keep them stable. And if we believe the US saying that they are using trucks, that doesn't do it at all. The US spends millions keeping our biological and chemical weapons supply up to date because it turns to s*** as it gets old.

[baggio202]

you keep bringing this up that the USA was the one to arm saddam like its a defense for your position that we shouldnt  go to war ...but since we did arm the stupid bastard isnt that even more of a reason for us to disarm him???

I just used it as a justification that we can't claim a higher moral ground in the issue as a claim for going to war. We knew he was killing his own citizens with it, yet we sold it to him anyways. Now we're coming across saying that we are the "champions of the Iraqi people" when we provided Saddam with all the weapons he needed to do whatever the f*** he pleased to his own people and we never condemned it at all.

 

Also, from 1991-1998, both Ritter and Rocke said that they got over 95% of the weapons from Iraq. So, there are a very slim amount in the country, if any. And any weapons he does have are useless goo by now because they have short shelf lives.

none of those people are in office anymore...

 

and yes we can claim a higher moral ground...just look at the war...we do everything within our power to aviod collateral damage..to the point where it probably has cost us extra casualites...we follow the geneva convention when it come to rules of war

 

now iraq , who also signed the geneva convention...has shoot prisoner's in the head , interrogated them on live tv...dressed up in US uniforms to kill surrending ioraqi troops,..hide out in hospitals ,schools and mosques...use women and children as human shields

 

i think we can pretty safely claim the higher moral ground

[LowerCaseRepublican]

none of those people are in office anymore...

 

and yes we can claim a higher moral ground...just look at the war...we do everything within our power to aviod collateral damage..to the point where it probably has cost us extra casualites...we follow the geneva convention when it come to rules of war

 

now iraq , who also signed the geneva convention...has shoot prisoner's in the head , interrogated them on live tv...dressed up in US  uniforms to kill surrending ioraqi troops,..hide out in hospitals  ,schools and mosques...use women and children as human shields

 

i think we can pretty safely claim the higher moral ground

Baggs, the war is still illegal. I found this on National Public Radio:

 

by PETER FREUNDLICH:

 

All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are

going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein

that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to

preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the

UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to

guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to

take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

 

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the

democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too,

because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a

little thing like democracy as they define it.

 

Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot

afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against

Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are

sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might

does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are

twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime

that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator

who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the

world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.

 

Listen. Don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the members of

the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish

someone had pointed out that "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking

Glass" are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic and on the

strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for

the Mad Hatter to say something like, `We must make war on him because he is

a threat to peace,' but not amusing for someone who actually commands an

army to say that.

 

As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying all this were it not

for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives are going to be lost in

what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning accident.

[baggio202]

none of those people are in office anymore...

 

and yes we can claim a higher moral ground...just look at the war...we do everything within our power to aviod collateral damage..to the point where it probably has cost us extra casualites...we follow the geneva convention when it come to rules of war

 

now iraq , who also signed the geneva convention...has shoot prisoner's in the head , interrogated them on live tv...dressed up in US  uniforms to kill surrending ioraqi troops,..hide out in hospitals  ,schools and mosques...use women and children as human shields

 

i think we can pretty safely claim the higher moral ground

Baggs, the war is still illegal. I found this on National Public Radio:

 

by PETER FREUNDLICH:

 

All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are

going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein

that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to

preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the

UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to

guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to

take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

 

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the

democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too,

because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a

little thing like democracy as they define it.

 

Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot

afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against

Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are

sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might

does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are

twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime

that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator

who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the

world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.

 

Listen. Don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the members of

the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish

someone had pointed out that "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking

Glass" are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic and on the

strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for

the Mad Hatter to say something like, `We must make war on him because he is

a threat to peace,' but not amusing for someone who actually commands an

army to say that.

 

As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying all this were it not

for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives are going to be lost in

what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning accident.

you keep saying the war is illegal...what court has found this an illegal and named the united states war criminals???....that is your opinion..it is not fact..

my opinion is the war is legal and is being prosecuting under UN resolution 677,678 ,and 1441...that is not fact either...maybe someday the US will stand trial in the world court..but i doubt there is anywhere near enough evidence...

 

also this guys whole arguement is based on the UN being a democratic organization....the UN is anything but democratic...5 countries basically have the ability to play a dictator anytime they want with veto power...that veto power really ruines the credibility of the UN...when one country can stop the wishes of the whole world , which pretty much was the case in kosovo , that is definately not a democracy...you have brought some articles here that make a pretty good case for your beliefs..this one is not one of them

 

the UN has failed miserably in rwanda , in kosovo , and now in iraq...it works pretty good on humanitarian aide and on nation building...but it takes action to defend the rights of an oppressed people....the UN has proved more than once it cant handle that task...

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The International Criminal Court has wanted to bring charges against Clinton et al. for their Yugoslav campaign. But the US has set the international precedent that if any US person is brought on war crimes charges, the US Army will be sent in full force to "liberate" them from the Hague.

 

So, we're basically bullying other countries now so we can do whatever we want. It's not that people don't WANT to bring charges against the US, it's that the court won't be able to do s*** if it's invaded by the US military.

 

The US has also stopped the wishes of a lot of the world...Israel is the country in the UN that has violated more resolutions than Saddam ever has. But every trime the world tries to enforce the resolutions, the US vetos it so nothing happens to Ariel Sharon.