Intelligence Report Links Saddam, Usama

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Ian McCracken, Nov 15, 2003.

  1. DJPoopypants

    DJPoopypants New Member

    Oh I'm 100% with you on that. Except I'm still wondering what that has to do with Iraq?

    Maybe a brilliant conservative can explain it to me w/o using the following arguments;

    a) uranium (debunked)
    b) terrorist groups inside northern Iraq (kurdish supported)
    c) retired palestinian terrorists
    d) coffee-money to palestinian bomber families
    e) WMD moved to other countries (CIA says no evidence of this)
    f) meetings in Prague (debunked)
    g) Anything said by Feith
    h) assasination attempt of pappy in Kuwait (clueless, incompetant)
     
  2. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    I would add to that assessment, our ability to actually effect positive change with the action.

    This is where I think the ability to effect positive change comes into effect. Saddam had already proven himself such a pariah that his continuation in power was proof to the terrorists that the U.S. was a paper tiger unwilling to even remove a dictator like Saddam who had invaded another country.

    Saddam was proof positive to the terrorists that it is safe to poke a stick in the eye of the U.S. and though you may stir her for a short time, in the long run she will turn away. If you believe the latest tape, this is what Saddam is still banking on. If we see this thing through, and leave a new model for the region in Iraq, this could be the first real step towards positive change in the region.


    I believe he we are succesful in Iraq, we certainly will be able to put more economic and military pressure on the countries you mention. Although I don't like the idea of this being a war for oil, one of the benifits of a rebuilt Iraq is that it could potentially allow us to put more pressure on Saudi Arabia without as much fear that they will cut off their oil supplies. We have also been able to pull our military out of that country and that presence was always a rallying cry for extremists.

    I would also hope that Iraq will allow a sizable U.S. military presense in the country for many years to come. Of course that would depend on the population accepting that we are not there to steal anything but to provide them security from their neighbors.


    Do you believe punishing the people of Iraq indefinitely and leaving them under the rule of a man like Saddam where all they can hope for is repression and a oil for food program, really generates any good will in the region?

    What was the "end game" of sanctions and inspections? How long could we have maintained the military prense necessary to pressure Saddam into cooperating with inspectors? Even if we had been convinced that Saddam didn't actually have WMD, how would we convince ourselves that he wouldn't develop them at some point in the future? If saddam refused to cooperate in the future as he had prior to our buildup, what would we have done then?
     
  3. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    Desert Fox II - Electric Boogaloo. Even leftist traitor David Kay admitted that sanctions and targeted military action were working.

    Now, as far as leaving the Iraqis in the thrall of a dictator. Well, it's cheating to use hindsight, but in hindsight, they weren't willing to go through the kind of sacrifices and effort necessary to overthrow Saddam. The flowers disguised as mortar shells are proof enough of that.

    It's not our policy to liberate the oppressed peoples of the world to begin with. It certainly isn't our policy to do so when support of the liberated isn't 100%. We can't assume that every nation will react the way France did in 1944.

    It isn't even a positive cost/benefit to liberate Cuba from its dictator, and by now the Miami Police Department could probably liberate Cuba. I agree that we should encourage and support viable independence movements, but there were none in Iraq.
     
  4. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Did we really want to set this precedent? I don't think so. Saying the war was about this and not the supposed WMDs is a stretch don't you think?

    According to Colon Powell the sanctions were working.
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

    And which do you think was more cost effective in containing Saddam, the indefinite sanctions or the indefinite occupation? When we had sanctions we atleast knew (supposedly) where he and his WMDs were.
     
  5. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    Are you so sure about that?

    What is wrong with setting the precedent that no leader in the world is excempt from behaving in a way that respects the basic human rights of the people they govern.

    I saw a special on WWII and the nazi death camps recently, and their was a quote from someone who had just toured one of the camps after it had been liberated, they said, "a world that allows this to happen, does not deserve peace." Can we really say, if we are not willing to make some sacrifices to remove people like Saddam Hussein from power, that we truly deserve peace?

    I'm not saying we have to accomplish this task in every country immediately, but maybe 9/11 has taught us that we can no longer live in great wealth and ignore human suffering on the planet, and not expect a level of resentment. We must finish the task in Iraq and show the world that we are not at war with Islam, that we are only at war with tyrants and terrorists.

    If the U.N. had decided to back us up in this action, there would be no doubt that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was not only good policy for Iraq, but good policy for world peace.

    Unfortunately it was better domestic politics in France, Germany, and Russia to stand up to some apparent U.S. arrogance than to stand up for what is right.

    Also if you read that interview with Powel, it was clear that the U.S. was under pressure at the time to reduce the actions that powell thought were working. That pressure would have continued, and we would have been continually forced to walk this tightrope of punishing Saddam, and defending ourselves against him, without punishing the Iraqi people. It was a verydifficult tightrope to walk, and at some point we may have erred in either direction, possibly causing mass starvation in Iraq on one hand, or giving Saddam more freedom to actually develop and deploy WMD on the other.

    Can anybody answer the question;
    What was the end game of sanctions and inspections?
     
  6. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Okay, so how do we determine which tyrants go first? If it were by [insert name of despot here]'s threat to our national security, wouldn't North Korea be first?

    I don't think I need to explain how logistically impossible it is to eliminate EVERY despot. I also don't think I need to explain how hypocritical the U.S. will look eliminating a despot sitting on a, and I quote Wolfie, "sea of oil", while other "thugs" run rampant in Africa, Asia and even the Ukraine.

    But this truth doesn't defend the President's position on Iraq so it must be ignored right?
     
  7. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    Obviously the President has to look at the entire situation, icluding our actual abilities. The situation in Iraq was obviously different from N. Korea and Africa. If we succeed in Iraq, our ability to change things in Africa and N. Korea without resorting to military options will be strengthened. If we fail in Iraq, our ability to be a psoitive force for peace in both the middle east and Africa will be greatly diminished.

    It is not hypocritical to say, we will continually evaluate EVERY despot, and decide what is the best course of action for that time, but that every Despot is on notice. Maybe the fact that these despot's don't want to raise their profile above our radar screen will be incentive for them to change their ways.

    Obviously one thing those despots don't want to do right now is support terrorism, and that is a big plus.
     
  8. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Or, by invading Iraq and not NK we told these dictators if you WANT WMDs we'll attack you, but if you HAVEWMDs we'll negotiate and give you oil to stop further development.

    Dear Michael Russ,

    HAHA.

    Sincerely,
    Your Nuclear Capable, Terrorist Supporting Friends in Tehran
     
  9. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    That is such a simplification of the differences between Iraq and North Korea, that even you can't actually believe that it is true.


    And you really don't think that the hardliners in Iran would have preferred the status quo in Iraq?

    Of course if we fail in Iraq it will only embolden the hardliners, but if succeed there certainly will be huge pressure on the hardliners in that country to reform.

    BTW, you still haven't answered the question:

    What was the end game of sanctions and Inspections in Iraq?
     
  10. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Then state the differences?

    1)Which one has nuclear weapons?
    2)Which one is notorious for selling weapons to other third-world nations?
    3)Which one is sitting on a "sea of oil"?
    4)Which one still does one and two with impunity.

    3 out of 4 say North Korea should be the 51st state, but our army's in Iraq. Go Figure.

    Pressure from whom? The U.N. or suppressed student protest? It's not coming from us, if you hadn't noticed we're busy with the "long hard slog" in Iraq. Iran and NK now have impunity.
     
  11. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Containment at the fraction of the cost, both monetarialy and in American lives, of this current debacle you apparently support. It's apparent Saddam Hussein posed no treat in any way to the U.S.

    It's cheap and fairly easy to contain a weak despot (See Cuba for an example). It's a pain in the ass to overthrow him without popular support (see Iraq today, the Russians in Afganistan, the U.S. in Vietnam).

    And don't give me Al-Qaida this or that. If Al-Qaida is the threat, take out Al-Qaida. Not some third world despot. All this has done is help Al-Qaida's recruitment.
     
  12. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Oh, no. They're having a blast while we beat up their enemy and get a bloody nose in the process. This is working out perfectly for them.
    I don't believe we have time to wait around for Iranian "moderates" to take over. In any case, the fact that we're wasting our resources in Iraq while ignoring vastly more serious threats pretty much speaks for itself.
     
  13. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    That is not an end game, that is a forever game, and it is not cheap or easy. How do you put a price tag on the prosperity and freedom that has been denied to the Cuban people for many many years?

    Why does the theory ring a bell though.

    Oh yeah, it was our policy against the Soviet Union prior to Ronald Reagan. George Bush, much like Reagan realized that the at some point you have to push beyond "containment" for real progress. That may mean temporaray sacrifices. When he first took his agressive stance with the Soviets Reagan was hammered by the same type of people who are hammering Bush now. In the end the world is a better place because of what Regan did, and it will be a better place because of what Bush is doing.

    I
     
  14. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Or on the MILLIONS of extra years provided by Castro's health care system. I'm very anti-communist, but Castro's record isn't too bad. It's about time right-wing nutjobs admit it.
     
  15. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Cuba is an incredible country. All the people I met there were perfectly happy. That's not to say that there aren't many who are not (anyone who will try to float 90 miles in an inner tube has clearly got issues), but Cuba is hardly the most adroit example of how containment of whatever actual threat exists is a bad thing, long-term.
     
  16. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    If they could achieve the level of objectivity and critical reasoning necessary to recognize the good along with the bad of someone like Castro, they wouldn't be right-wing nutjobs in the first place.

    They also can't admit it because then they'd have to answer the question of why we don't do something similar here with our healthcare system. Which would call into question the fundamentalist neoliberal underpinnings of their worldview and challenge their entire value system, including their belief that the profits of a few CEOs are more important than the needs of the majority of the people.
     
  17. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    4 million people live in Iraq. Do you know how many people are being terrorized around the world? You're basically saying this whole invasion was for the good of the Iraqi people. If that's the case why not go somewhere like North Korea where the whole country is starving? Because the humanitarian excuse for invasion is *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# and you know it. You're just having difficulty coming to grips with the fact your chosen leader lied to you and now our soldiers are dying in an unpopular war, with no exit strategy, and no real agenda now that Saddam is gone.

    You see the U.S. military in not unlike any other organziation. GM makes cars, if you asked GM to immediately switch to making tvs they would have a problem. The U.S. military's primary function is to kill and conquer. They're damned good at it. However, they're not very good at occupying and policing unfriendly pieces of desert.

    Do you honestly think we're good at nation building and it should be our job to save people from desposts and rebuild their nations? Give me one example, save the Marshall Plan and South Korea (although I wouldn't say that was our doing), where the United States has effectively put together a broken nation-state.

    I have serious problems rebuilding the rest of the world when our own schools and hospitals are such *#*#*#*#. The District of Columbia does not have a public hospital. 530,000 people...no hospital. A boy died yesterday becuase he had to take a 27 minute ambulance ride after being shot by a stray bullet in the ghetto. Explain why 530,000 American citizens don't even have a hospital, but you think we should go and save Iraqis from Saddam?

    We've got hungry children, uneducated children, dying children...right in our nation's capital, but Iraq is what needs saved? Spare me this crap and tell me you found some WMDs or something.
     
  18. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    I have an idea, and that is why the U.S. has to be more proactive then it has been in the recent past.

    No. I'm saying the invasion is the firs small step in what is good for all of the people of the world.

    Because the military, geographical, and historical situation at the present time do not make that a viable option. North Korea certainly is a long term project, and our ability to be successfull their will be greatly enhanced if we are successful in Iraq, thus Iraq is a first step.

    I no know such thing. It may not be the only reason, but I really think that for the "neo-cons" who have been much malligned, the long term strategy of reasserting the American prense on the world stage, it is a very critical factor.

    I could care less if it is popular in the short run. Like I said, Reagan was hated by the same type of people that hate Bush now. What I care about is the long run. I thank God that Bush has the courage to stand up and do the right thing. What is funny is I can have peace of mind knowing that my desire to see the Bush policy succeed is aligned with what is best for the future of humanity, I couldn't imagine what it will be like for the people who seem to have so much invested in hating Bush, that it would pain them to see us succeed in Iraq. (Although I'm sure they will find some way to give credit to the French and the U.N.)

    Absolutely, and that is why this is such a difficult task, and why we can't just go about it everywhere in the world right away, but just because something is difficult, does not mean it is not worth doing. The fact that we will persevere in this difficult task, certainly will not go unnoticed by other leaders who may have thought that poking sticks at the U.S. was not a dangerous game for them.

    Indeed we are not good at it.(unfortunately, neither is the U.N.). I think we have to start to learn to be better at projecting our power in a positive manner. 9/11 brought home to roost the fact that we can't ignore the problems and consider ourselves safe, when the world around us is unstable.

    Don't you think there is a reason, that many of much of the formerly soviet dominated states of eastern Europe support us? They saw how are commitment to fighting communism payed off for them.

    This is a false choice. Do you really think if we do nothing in Iraq, it would just automatically solve all of our domestic problems?

    It is interesting that you consider anything other than finding WMD crap.
     
  19. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    That's because it is. You pro-war types tapdance round this like Bing Crosby on Speed, but that's the reason we were told a war was necessary. Imminent threat, terrible danger, shitmypantsandcurseOsama. Remember?

    You didn't give a shit about 'first steps to a better world' you didn't care about the Iraqis (and the world vomits everytime you now lie and claim otherwise) and you didn't have the slightest interest in exporting democracy to the oppressed peoples of the world.

    You just wanted to blow that uppity raghead to pieces because by God, the cheeky mother had it coming.

    So - no WMD, it's all crap. The whole thing was a load of crap. Lies, falsehoods ... crap.
     
  20. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    I know my town has crappy schools and no public hospital while we are paying $87 billion to build schools and hospitals in Iraq. You don't have a problem with this? There are a lot better things $87 billion could go towards. Like homeland security for one!
     
  21. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    This is from Bush's speech to the U.N.



    Wow, did that make you feel better?
    Thank you for telling me what I care about, I guess you would no better than me on that issue.

    In fact I have a great deal of hope for the people of the middle east, and would never use a term like "raghead".

    Well, I guess only time will tell.
     
  22. dfb547490

    dfb547490 New Member

    Feb 9, 2000
    The Heights
    Establishing democracy in North Korea, or for that matter Cuba, is not going to lead to a chain reaction whereby several other totalitarian regimes who pose a threat to the US will be toppled in turn. Establishing democracy in Iraq most likely will lead to that chain reaction. That's the fundamental difference.
     
  23. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Actually, around 23 million.
     
  24. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Whatever, still a drop in the bucket of the total number of affected people worldwide.
     
  25. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Did you read this from the Project for the New American Century web-site or did you think this crap yourself?

    Establishing democracy in NK would rid the world of someone who's actually capable of proliferating nuclear weapons. And considering we had WMDs and the threat Iraq posed rammed down out throat I think that is the fundamental difference.
     

Share This Page