As I understand it the survey was done over the last few months and then was compared to a similar survey done three years ago and it shows opinion of the U.S. has dropped dramatically. So no, it's not just the same "Well they always hated us anyway."
Never is a solution presented.
That's because it's long and complicated and I doubt you'd want to hear it.
These were the same countries that have a favorable view of Bin Laden.
Because they see him as a champion against us. Are you still not grasping the concept of why that's a problem?
Oh did I not grasp it Alison ? gonna give me another citizenship lesson are ya ? Good thing you're not condescending about it. So they see him as a champion, what does that tell you about their mentality ?
The same poll also found they were disapointed that the Iraqi's didn't put up more of a fight.
the issue isn't whether they like us. The issue is whether they hate us. When we do things to make them hate us and make them feel threatened, it's only going to increase the threat of terrorism because that's the only weapon they have to use against us.
Do you know that some just simply don't want us to exist ? I'm not being dramatic, they beleive all nonbeleivers are subhuman and should either convert or be given the sword. The moderates don't, they put you on the same level as dogs, no wonder they hate us. They beleive all non-jews are as well. Some believe the ground you mereley walked on is defiled because you walked on it. It's the most virulent form or racism you'll ever see. If you were there for vacation or business, the ground you and your family walked on would be considered unholy.
Tell me Alison, would you be upset about a poll that the KKK hates all who support equal rights ? Would you worry about having someone hate us who simply hates all blacks ? It's the same thing and it has nothing to do with a who cares what the world thinks attitude, I do care, I care about opinions of rational people. The numbers in Europe ebb and flow, they go up and they go down as well.
There's so many factors involved in the Muslim countries, take a look at the Imam's, the madrassas, the clerics and the shieks who all preach, breed and impose hatred and yes violence. It's pure racisim, Take a look at what they think of Jews. Not policy issues itself but what they think of Jews as a people. It's disgusting and you know that. So I'm supposed to get worked up that they are pissed off at us.
Terrorism = bad Bin Laden = Terrorism
No kidding ?
After the Iraq War more people in some countries have faith in bin Laden to do the right thing.
They had it just as much before. ie, people naming their kids Osama, I guess they already had enough Adolf and Bentio's.
After the Iraq War more people in some countries have faith in terrorism as the right thing.
Really, where in the poll did it say that ? I've got news for you Allison, we've been under attack for years. I'll post a list you of all the attacks that have gone on and in many cases ignored by the public.
The Iraq war has increased the desire for terrorism in some countries.
I disagree, I see these others who see us as a threat as bieng a good thing. Weekness in that part of the world gets you killed. I think we are seeing some other nations second guessing that strategy of letting the extremist infect their countries populace. They are seeing it becuase they are realizing that they are targets too of the terrorists. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. For years they've looked the other way, well now the chicken's come home to roost and they see the writing on the wall.
So they see him as a champion, what does that tell you about their mentality ?
Yes, that must be it. They as an entire nation must be mentally defective.
I The same poll also found they were disapointed that the Iraqi's didn't put up more of a fight.
Because they had hoped that the U.S. couldn't come in and simply do what it wanted without having to expend too much effort. Weren't you hoping Afghanistan would be able to put up more of a fight when the Russians invaded?
Do you know that some just simply don't want us to exist ?
Some. I don't believe it's a majority, though I'm sure it's probably growing right now.
I'm not being dramatic, they beleive all nonbeleivers are subhuman and should either convert or be given the sword.
And I've heard people over here say similar things to the effect that we should should just nuke the whole area. I would hope other countries aren't basing their policies on what these people say.
Tell me Alison, would you be upset about a poll that the KKK hates all who support equal rights ?
If I was black, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to hear that the KKK hated me. But I would definitely be worried if there was a poll that showed the number of white people who hated blacks and who thought the KKK had some good ideas was on the rise. And if it was on the rise because of something I was doing, you can bet I'd stop and think about whether or not that was really a good idea. Not because I'm giving into the KKK, but because clearly I'm making more enemies that I really don't need or want.
Terrorism = badBin Laden = Terrorism
No kidding ?
Ok then, you're with me so far...
They had it just as much before.
No, that's what the poll is saying. It's not just as much. It's gone up dramatically.
Really, where in the poll did it say that ?
Come on now, follow the logic. If people have a greater faith now in bin Laden to do "the right thing", and bin Laden stands for terrorism, then it follows that more people now believe that terrorism is the right thing to do. And indeed, we've begun to see a new wave of terrorism now, a resurgence of Al-Q, and the terror alert level hasn't dropped one bit from what it was before the war.
Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. For years they've looked the other way, well now the chicken's come home to roost and they see the writing on the wall.
If a greater and greater percentage of the population believes terrorism is a good thing, it will make it harder and harder for those governments to actually do anything about it. And if the gap between what the people want and what the government wants becomes too great, there could even actually be a revolution which certainly doesn't help our cause any.
I disagree, I see these others who see us as a threat as bieng a good thing.
And I've heard people over here say similar things to the effect that we should should just nuke the whole area. I would hope other countries aren't basing their policies on what these people say.
I've heard similar things said but I would say they are in the minority fortunatley, alot of it is simplistic rhetoric from the nuke the whole area crowd.
If I was black, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to hear that the KKK hated me. But I would definitely be worried if there was a poll that showed the number of white people who hated blacks and who thought the KKK had some good ideas was on the rise. And if it was on the rise because of something I was doing, you can bet I'd stop and think about whether or not that was really a good idea. Not because I'm giving into the KKK, but because clearly I'm making more enemies that I really don't need or want.
What if the only thing you were doing was being black. Pretty tough to stop being black unless you're Michael Jackson. If it was for something you said or did then yes you'd have to weigh wether or not you wanted to appease them so they'd not hate you as much. Good luck with that, If the brave souls who fought racsim in the late 50's and early 60's hadn't done so who knows where we'd be. They had 2 options, go along to get along and go with the status quo or fight back, doing so got all the racist idiots all upset becuase they liked things the way they were. Hate crimes, lynchings, went way up as did disdain for black people. Good thing they did REGARDLESS of public opinion at the time.
And indeed, we've begun to see a new wave of terrorism now, a resurgence of Al-Q, and the terror alert level hasn't dropped one bit from what it was before the war.
A bombing in S.A is a new wave ? Most people had never heard of AlQuieda or Bin Laden before 9-11, they were more active then than they are now. I'll post a list for you later today on terrorist acts and how many have gone on. This isn't new or some new wave. If so you'd have to also believe had we done nothing in Afghanistan or Iraq that attacks would stop. We tried that approach for 25 years. It didn't work.
BTW many of those same countries were upset about Afghanistan too, should we have done nothing in Afghanistan ?
I guess you like being the bully.
Not at all, I'd prefer to not have to be worried about it and live in peace. I'd prefer if they quit teaching kids from the age of 5 to hate Jews and Americans and Westerners as subhuman. I'd prefer it if they didn't harbor terrorists, I'd prefer it if they didn't support the Imams or madrasas through open support or looking the other way. I'd prefer they didn't blame all their ills on the Jews and the West. I'd prefer they had freedom of the press. I'd prefer they stop hating because we aren't of their faith. I'd prefer they weren't ruled by kings, ogilarchy's or extremist zealous regimes. Mostly I'd prefer they quit targeting civilians to get a point across. It has nothing to do with beign or wanting to be a bully, it's called self defense and no matter what we might have done to upset them it doesn't equal the level of hatred you are seeing.
Dennis wanted something like an international council or discussion where every nation with a gripe against the U.S. would get to sit down and take their best shot.
Somehow, some way there's a group of people in this very country who won't stop until the U.S. Government apologizes for Sept. 11.
"Sorry we put you through all that trouble to plan and carry out an attack. It's our fault. We'll go away now."
IMO The Palestians and Arabs who use Israel as their goat are still going to hate them and us. I also think Bush might be giving the Palestinains eough rope to hang themselves with. A couple of bombings done by suicide attacker will throw it all away. Bush can say he tried and tell Sharon to do what he needs to do. I think it's a good political move and it might expose their ways for the rest of the world (except the fanatics).
That being said I hope and pray it works and somehow the 2 sides can have and live in peace. I wish I wa more oppomistic but I don't think so. Then again miricles happen so one can hope at least.
It's probably a moral failing on my part, but I've pretty much lost any sympathy I had for the Palistinians.
I dread any talk of peace between the two sides. Because it seems the moment there appears to be progress, that's when it's the most dangerous. I'm suppose to travel to the Middle East in September.
It's probably a moral failing on my part, but I've pretty much lost any sympathy I had for the Palistinians.
I don't think you're alone there at all. I feel the same, I used to have sympathy for their cause.
I dread any talk of peace between the two sides. Because it seems the moment there appears to be progress, that's when it's the most dangerous. I'm suppose to travel to the Middle East in September.
I know. I hope everything goes well in your travels. What part may I ask ?
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton
"We know he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons." Al Gore
"There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
"The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration." Defense Secretary William Cohen
"It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment. It (the U.N.) doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity." National Security Adviser Sandy Berger
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." Sen. Tom Daschle
"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description. France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach." Sen. John Kerry
Just to let you know that the French haven't stopped ribbing us.
Christian Berger, France's agricultural attache has been lobbying for the US to ease import restrictions that require that French cheese be pasteurized. They say the process wrecks the flavor and makes the cheese rubbery.
"We don't feel our cheeses are that much of a weapon of mass destruction," he told the Wall Street Journal.
This Democrat is wondering why GDubbya is claiming that they WILL be found(which they just might, yet) but at the same time, he is cutting BACK on the numbers of those that are charged with finding them, by 30%.
Really. 30% ? Hmmm, Well if you're referring to normal troops doing that duty. You're correct. But their NOT reducing the numbers of inspectors. Nor have they run out of places to look, about a third of the sites have been inspected and those are just the ones inspected. There's also thousands of square miles that have to be covered. It's not a 30% reduction, it's an increase. Perhaps the reporter didn't bother to mention it. Here you go.
More weapons inspectors head to Iraq
Huh ? I thought we were reducing them, that damn admin doesn't know what they're doin' !
Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton will leave for Iraq Monday to head a team of more than 1,300 investigators from the United States, UK and Australia. Between 250 and 300 of those team members -- including some inspectors who were in Iraq prior to 1998 -- will visit suspected weapons sites.
The transition from the current inspection leadership will start no later than June 7 and take about two weeks.
Dayton's team, called the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), will also have responsibility for finding terrorists and war criminals, the general said.
Dayton estimated that slightly fewer than 200 U.S. personnel have so far checked about one- third of Iraq's suspected weapons sites.
While the ISG represents only a slight increase in numbers, Dayton said his team would be better prepared to respond quickly to intelligence reports, and would no longer simply check off a list of suspect sites.
"The Iraq Survey Group represents a significant expansion in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction," he said, adding that it would be "a deliberate process and a long-term effort."
Oh, and also this, more inspectors on top of that.
The U.N is sending IAEA (international atomic energy agency) to inspect a looted nuclear sight. Hundreds have became sick after a nuke sight was looted. Many are suffering from high doses of radiation. Thought they didn't have nukes ? Perhaps it was a docile holding sight but who knows. Either way there are more people looking at this stuff not less.
They know that JT, it's just not the politically expedient thing to do. Many who are on the where are the WMD bandwagon now were the same "experts" who said we were "bogged down" the it was a "bad plan" it was a quagmire and Vietnam part duex, oops. When they were proved dead wrong on that they switched gears. Then it was on to the horrid horrid looting of the museum. Not that the press will ever bother to retract that or admit they blew it way out of proportion or anything. For some reason it got major airplay, perhaps because they couldn't find anything else. It was widely reported that 170,000 pieces of artifacts were "looted". It's actually, ahem. 33. Yes 33 pieces. Yet the story was milked. Some called it a war crime. An attrocity. They claimed we guarded the oil ministry but not the museum. Of course that was false too but why let facts get in the way.
Here's an intersting retrospect of what was said and just some of the handwringing about the museum.
When, back in mid-April, the news first arrived of the looting at the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad, words hardly failed anyone. No fewer than 170,000 items had, it was universally reported, been stolen or destroyed, representing a large proportion of Iraq's tangible culture. And it had all happened as some US troops stood by and watched, and others had guarded the oil ministry.
Professors wrote articles. Professor Michalowski of Michigan argued that this was "a tragedy that has no parallel in world history; it is as if the Uffizi, the Louvre, or all the museums of Washington DC had been wiped out in one fell swoop". Professor Zinab Bahrani from Columbia University claimed that, "By April 12 the entire museum had been looted," and added, "Blame must be placed with the Bush administration for a catastrophic destruction of culture unparalleled in modern history." From Edinburgh Professor Trevor Watkins lamented that, "The loss of Iraq's cultural heritage will go down in history - like the burning of the Library at Alexandria - and Britain and the US will be to blame." Others used phrases such as cultural genocide and compared the US in particular to the Mongol invaders of 13th-century Iraq.
So, there's the picture: 100,000-plus priceless items looted either under the very noses of the Yanks, or by the Yanks themselves. And the only problem with it is that it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks.
Furious, I conclude two things from all this. The first is the credulousness of many western academics and others who cannot conceive that a plausible and intelligent fellow-professional might have been an apparatchiks of a fascist regime and a propagandist for his own past.
The second is that - these days - you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed.
Then there was the whole BBC "piece" which people jumped on. That story has also been shot full of holes. (no pun intended) In fact the guy who wrote it is now trying to defend it but said this the other day in an interview. His name is Kampfner.
"First things first. Credit where it is due. The Americans had a legitimate right in getting Lynch out of the hospital in Nasiriya. They had no way of knowing what her fate was, whether she was being well or badly treated."
Bingo, dimwit. That kind of kills your whole premise for the story though.
In fact some here bought that too. Hmmm ?
Then of course who could forget the general looting too. Ah yes, the mayhem. Another exaggeration, it was the closest they came to being correct though because yes it actually happened, but it wasn't the scene it was made out to be either.
I spoke last week for an hour with the wife of a very close friend who is in Iraq right now. He had recently moved out of Bagdhad and was headed somewhere else. He's been in many parts of Iraq. He's said the same thing some others have said as well as is now coming out in some news outlets. The looting was exagerated too. Greatly in some cases. Absolutley it happened but after the first few days of freedom it died down. Also he said that 95% of the people he's had contact with are pleasant, grateful, curious etc. They do have suspicions of cousre, who wouldn't after 30 years of Saddamn. Most though have been positive interactions he said and people have been very appreciative. Where most of the reporters are going is the Sunni neighborhoods. They are intentionally being left of many of the process because they are also members or supporters of the Baath party. Makes sense to me, it would have been like getting rid of Adolf and leaving the Nazi's in charge. They are going to those neighborhoods to get ticked off Baath party members on film. Is everything perfect? Of course not, far from it. Yes their are differing opinions and factions. However it's not what's being portrayed in many supposed news outlets. Their are some infiltrators and Saddamn loyalists causing as much trouble as they can as well. It doesn't take many to do it but their numbers are small. It's stil dangerous there and will be until these dinks are rooted out. Personally I'd rather be in normal combat conditions than what is going on now. I'd much rather prefer I knew who my enemy was. Being in this situation is more scary for troops in some cases because it's an unkown.
So we had some "experts" Tell us the war would cause mass Iriaqi casualties, 150,000 at least, thousands of dead service men from street fighting. Israel would get pulled into the war and cause a nuclear showdown. This was just a few of the popular doomsday scenario's. Then we were in a quagmire, a plan gone wrong, it was all Rummy's fault. Then it was looting, then a museum, then a rescue that was apparently just staged. Now we've moved on to WMD's. See a pattern here at all ?
It doesn't bother anyone that they've been proven wrong at every turn so far, they'll plow ahead, hoping one of these times they might just be right. Then they can say see ! Told you so, we were right all along. Logic of course never enters the equation.
First can intelligence be bad ? Sure, it failed us on 9-11, it failed on the Cole, the Embassies, the WTC attack in 93' etc. etc. Apparently everyone was wrong then and Saddamn was squeaky clean. But yet the lack of logic or reasoning fails to answer these questions.
The U.N knew he had them, because, well, he did. They documented it. Saddamns obligation was to prove he no longer had them, in 12 years he never did.
Perhaps Bill or others can answer these questions.
1) If Saddamn didn't have them, why would he wait so long to let inspectors back in? Why did he only do so when he had 200,000 troops on his border ?
2) If he destroyed them do you think for one second he wouldn't have called inspectors and invitred them over and gotten sanctions ended ?
3) Was everyone else who said he was a threat and had WMD's wrong too ?
4) Why if he didn't have them, knowing what could happen and he would die or at least lose power not have said o.k here you are, here's what I have or here's proof that I destroyed them. ?
There's plenty of common sense to answer those questions and the answers should be obvious. "Should" being the key word. If someone has a political bend it won't matter. Personally I want to find them because I want them out of circulation. If they don't or are buried underground in the desert and we don't find them for 20 years I don't care. IMO it was the right decision I've seen what this fuck is/was capable of. Leaving him in power wasn't an option. The other reason I hope we find them is because it will be just one more time those with a political bent will be proven dead wrong. Perhaps they can go back to lamenting 33 museum pieces stolen and feign outrage over that.
Meanwhile, last week a mass grave was discovered, it had over 200 CHILDREN in it who were shot or buried alive. Many were still clutching their dolls. Yea, Bush lied and Saddamn didn't he got rid of them on his own accord and Bush lied because he "wanted" a war.
Clinton may have believed that Iraq had weapons they shouldn't have, but he didn't institute a regime change. He pursued other courses of action more appropriate to the situation.
What Bush did was more akin to the following:
Bush: Drop your weapon!
Saddam: I don't have a weapon.
Bush: Drop your weapon or I'll shoot.
Saddam: I don't have a weapon.
Bush: I mean it, drop your weapon or I'll shoot!
Saddam: I don't have a weapon.
Hans Blix: I'm standing right here and I don't see a weapon.
Bush: I know you have a weapon. You had one last week. Take your clothes off, we're doing a strip search.
Saddam: Screw you!
Bush: {Bang bang bang bang bang)
Uniformed officer: (checking body) I'm not finding a weapon sir.
Bush: Well obviously he must have thrown it into the sewer as I was shooting him.
Sure, it might have been logical to think he had a gun in the example above, but that doesn't mean the response was appropriate.
And the one thing that still stands out to me as remarkably clear in this whole cat and mouse game is if Saddam had these weapons, why did he not use them when he was attacked? Why were these weapons not even deployed? I can maybe buy the argument that the order to use them never got handed down, but if that was the case, they should have been sitting there ready to use and would have been easily found. If the order to use them wasn't capable of being given, I very much doubt the order to hide them could have come down effectively. So without a doubt, these weapons were never even deployed. Our attack was hardly a surprise, so why is that? What reason could there have been other than that they simply weren't there to be used?
Many who are on the where are the WMD bandwagon now were the same "experts" who said we were "bogged down"
We are bogged down. We now have a military presence over there trying to run a country that increasingly doesn't want us there. Attacks on U.S. soldiers continues and the death toll rises.
the it was a "bad plan"
It was a bad plan. Especially if there had actually been weapons of mass destruction there in which case it would have been a very ugly war. And it seems like inadequate planning was done for the aftermath. They've already fired the first person they had in charge of the job.
Then it was on to the horrid horrid looting of the museum.
Well apparently someone got it wrong when they said the museum was looted. So the premise was faulty. But all the conclusions drawn from that premise were entirely correct. If all those items were gone, it definitely would have been a tragedy on par with the burning of the library of Alexandria.
They claimed we guarded the oil ministry but not the museum. Of course that was false too but why let facts get in the way.
I haven't followed this story that closely since I haven't run across many articles on it, but how is it false? We didn't guard the oil ministry? Or we did guard the museum?
1) If Saddamn didn't have them, why would he wait so long to let inspectors back in? Why did he only do so when he had 200,000 troops on his border ?
Let's quote jethro on that one. Was he not the one that said people in that culture respect a show of strength? Saddam wasn't going to stay in power for his brilliant domestic policies. The way he attracted followers was by being the one guy that would stand up to the U.S. He'd only back down when he absolutely had to, but otherwise it was to his advantage to constantly push the line.
2) If he destroyed them do you think for one second he wouldn't have called inspectors and invitred them over and gotten sanctions ended ?
See above. Calling attention to his compliance would have helped him internationally, but not domestically. Though I can't really explain why he would then bother to comply at all except to maybe guess that he didn't want to actually get caught with them or that he preferred to spend his money on palaces.
3) Was everyone else who said he was a threat and had WMD's wrong too ?
Apparently. At least on that specific count.
4) Why if he didn't have them, knowing what could happen and he would die or at least lose power not have said o.k here you are, here's what I have or here's proof that I destroyed them. ?
Don't know. Maybe he thought that if he did that he'd lose his domestic power. Maybe he was of a mentality that he'd rather die fighting than give in to the Americans. Maybe he was losing his mental faculties and thought he really could win the war. I still say the bigger question is if he did have them, why didn't he use them, or at least deploy them?
Clinton may have believed that Iraq had weapons they shouldn't have, but he didn't institute a regime change. He pursued other courses of action more appropriate to the situation.
Like launching cruise missles ? Yea, that did the trick.
And the one thing that still stands out to me as remarkably clear in this whole cat and mouse game is if Saddam had these weapons, why did he not use them when he was attacked? Why were these weapons not even deployed? I can maybe buy the argument that the order to use them never got handed down, but if that was the case, they should have been sitting there ready to use and would have been easily found.
That's the exact reason he didsn't use them in 91' when he had them. He also knew if he used them this time he was screwed in the P.R war he hoped to win and anyone sympathetic to him would have turned.
If the order to use them wasn't capable of being given, I very much doubt the order to hide them could have come down effectively.
Before the war that order could have easily come down before comm was cut.
So without a doubt, these weapons were never even deployed.
Right, just like in 91'. He had them then too. It was kind of a big reasons behind that whole sanctions thing.
Our attack was hardly a surprise, so why is that? What reason could there have been other than that they simply weren't there to be used?
You're right our attack hardly was a suprise. Oh BTW, the cops are going to look in your house next week for pot. I hope they don't find any. His Co's also knew the probable outcome of the war, they also know that the public tends to be a bit touchy about war criminals. You're also talking about small weaponry it's a massive place with alot of places to hide things. It'd not like Nuclear missles where you have to have large facilities, transporters, fuel trucks for delivery systems, crews to man them, launchers or in ground silo's. You could probably fit enough to kill 100,000 people in you car. No go find it in the desert.
That's the exact reason he didsn't use them in 91' when he had them. He also knew if he used them this time he was screwed in the P.R war he hoped to win and anyone sympathetic to him would have turned.
If he had all these reasons for not using them, why even bother having them?
Oh BTW, the cops are going to look in your house next week for pot. I hope they don't find any.
Ummm, ok, whatever. As long as it's not Bush looking for it because then apparently I would have some, I'd just be hiding it so well that no one could find it.
Then it was on to the horrid horrid looting of the museum.
Well apparently someone got it wrong when they said the museum was looted. So the premise was faulty. But all the conclusions drawn from that premise were entirely correct. If all those items were gone, it definitely would have been a tragedy on par with the burning of the library of Alexandria.
Right, IF it happened. Sheesh.
I haven't followed this story that closely since I haven't run across many articles on it, but how is it false? We didn't guard the oil ministry? Or we did guard the museum?
I just love these so called scholars. Blame Bush for not protecting 1 museum in the entire country. If they were so damned concerned, why weren't they over there themselves to protect it.
And just how is Iraq suppose to rebuild? With museum pieces or secured oil fields? And how are the Iraqi people suppose to eat? Museum pieces are probably not very tastey. But oil sure can buy a lot of food. I wonder how much medicine oil can buy?
Why should anyone believe a word Saddam said in regards to WMD?
Well you can't just automatically assume the opposite either. And why do you keep asking that as if any of this was based solely on something Saddam said?
Why should anyone believe a word Saddam said in regards to WMD?
Well you can't just automatically assume the opposite either.
So you're saying he'd tell the truth possibly. O.K then let's assume he got rid of them all on his own. He just decided one day while sitting on the shitter reading the sports section to get rid of all his WMD's. Then why kick out inspectors ? Why not call Hans and say , c'mon over. I'm clean as a whistle. Fact is and you know it is that he didn't. He did everything he could to delay and deciveve. Why not do it to not only put egg on the UN and more importantly the US ? Why not do it and get sanctions ended ? Sanctions were hurting his country and his personal wealth, it would have helped him internationally and domestically. With sanctions gone he had even more power and money, he would have gotten rid of the UN once and for all, he would ahve emerged as victorious in standing up to the west, starting a war and still keeping power. It was a win win for him so why didn't he do it if he was clean ?
And why do you keep asking that as if any of this was based solely on something Saddam said?
Well, JT's the one who asked it but you have 2 sides of the story, Saddamn on one side and the UN and US on the other. Someone wasn't tellign the truth. Let's see, hmm. I can either believe Bush, the UN, Clinton, Albright, Powell, Daschle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Lieberman etc. etc... Or.......... a guy who had 200 kids executed and thousands more and dropped folks into shredders for sport. A guy who lied and obstructed for 12 years the deal he made to end the war he started in the first place. A guy who had WMD's and used them before too. So we have 2 sides and one wasn't telling the truth,,,,Let me think about it for a second.
And why do you keep assuming all my posts are in response to you?
but you have 2 sides of the story, Saddamn on one side and the UN and US on the other.
No, that's totally missing the point of the question. Determining whether or not Iraq had banned weapons was a little more complicated than simply asking Saddam if he did. He said he didn't, which granted doesn't count for much, though it still stands in contrast to North Korea going around saying, "hell yes we have them, what are you going to do about it?" The Iraqi officials we've captured have said they didn't have them. At this point do you think they'd gladly give them up for a plea bargain? There's the fact that they didn't use them or even deploy them. There's the fact that we haven't found any. There's a lot more to determining the truth of the matter than just whether or not you believe Saddam.
Right and there's no logical reason for him to do so. If he didn't have them, no point in booting them. No point in delaying and saying we couldn't go here or there. It didn't benefit him economically. Think about this for a moment. His WMD's or at least failure to allow full inspections cost him millions and still he did it. That's how important he thought they were as he saw it as some sort of equalizer. Politically it didn't benefit him, not only monetarily but within the world community. Internally I don't think he cared one way or another what happened to his citizens obviously. It cost him alot and in the end his power and probably his life. If didn't have them, why would he not have invited everyone for a look. Fact is he didn't and broke every resolution the UN put forth.
No, that's totally missing the point of the question. Determining whether or not Iraq had banned weapons was a little more complicated than simply asking Saddam if he did.
It was his requirement under the deal he agreed to to end the war that he started. He never once provided full information or full unfettered access to inspections. He laways wanted to negotiate when there was nothing to negotiate. It wasn't his perogative. The burden was on him to show what he did or didn't have and to show what he destroyed, that burden was on him alone, not the UN or the US. Our role was to enforce the mandates which we thankfully did.
it still stands in contrast to North Korea going around saying, "hell yes we have them, what are you going to do about it?
So you're saying you want us to attack North Korea ? Where's the UN on this one, still haven't heard from them on that. I guess it's o.k if we're unilateralist if they don't want to deal with it. The North Korea situation is totally different. They are surrounded by nations unfriendly to it. They are isolated and can be dealt with probably economically since they are dependant on outside aid to survive. In essence they are blackmailing us for something they alreaddy blackmailed us once on. They said to Mr. Clinton , hey give us money and aid and we'll drop the Nukes. So we did, now their back after they broke the agreement because they want more. Feed a raccoon and see how many times they come back. Totally different situation in a totally different part of the world with different cultures and values.
There's a lot more to determining the truth of the matter than just whether or not you believe Saddam.
They said they didn't have them in 91'. They did. They didn't use them then either. Conditions also have to be just right to use them or you'll take out your own troops as well. Why were there thousands upon thousands of new issue mop gear the Iraqi's had ? No point in mop gear unless they were worried we'd use never gas on them. It's not a matter of beleiving Saddamn. Anyone who does is frankly a moron. It comes down to knowing the facts. Which were he had them so he either A) hid them or b) shipped them or sold them to another nation) or C) destroyed them because he was a nice guy or D) destroyed them right before the inspectors got there or before the war started. Either way he violated umpteen resolutions, either way he was a murderous fuck. He funded terrorist, their were training camps and Iraqi officials met with AQ leaders. I doubt it was to discuss human rights issues. Either way the world is better off without this scurge. Yea I know, some parts you don't feel are, tell that to the parents of the kids found shot clutching their dolls. He was a danger to us and to the mideast. Great armies aren't needed to cause havoc as we've seen 19 men can do. I don't think people get it yet or understand the threats we face.
I guess common sense would dictate that the administration should get more time with this weapons search. But seeing as how they have had difficult time finding their two biggest bogeymen (one for more than a year and a half, now) how long does this have to go on before at least Tenant's job is on the line?
Is there a limit to Republican or Conservative patience with this?
As I understand it the survey was done over the last few months and then was compared to a similar survey done three years ago and it shows opinion of the U.S. has dropped dramatically. So no, it's not just the same "Well they always hated us anyway."
Never is a solution presented.
That's because it's long and complicated and I doubt you'd want to hear it.
AW,
These were the same countries that have a favorable view of Bin Laden.
Oh did I not grasp it Alison ? gonna give me another citizenship lesson are ya ? Good thing you're not condescending about it. So they see him as a champion, what does that tell you about their mentality ?
The same poll also found they were disapointed that the Iraqi's didn't put up more of a fight.
Do you know that some just simply don't want us to exist ? I'm not being dramatic, they beleive all nonbeleivers are subhuman and should either convert or be given the sword. The moderates don't, they put you on the same level as dogs, no wonder they hate us. They beleive all non-jews are as well. Some believe the ground you mereley walked on is defiled because you walked on it. It's the most virulent form or racism you'll ever see. If you were there for vacation or business, the ground you and your family walked on would be considered unholy.
Tell me Alison, would you be upset about a poll that the KKK hates all who support equal rights ? Would you worry about having someone hate us who simply hates all blacks ? It's the same thing and it has nothing to do with a who cares what the world thinks attitude, I do care, I care about opinions of rational people. The numbers in Europe ebb and flow, they go up and they go down as well.
There's so many factors involved in the Muslim countries, take a look at the Imam's, the madrassas, the clerics and the shieks who all preach, breed and impose hatred and yes violence. It's pure racisim, Take a look at what they think of Jews. Not policy issues itself but what they think of Jews as a people. It's disgusting and you know that. So I'm supposed to get worked up that they are pissed off at us.
No kidding ?
They had it just as much before. ie, people naming their kids Osama, I guess they already had enough Adolf and Bentio's.
Really, where in the poll did it say that ? I've got news for you Allison, we've been under attack for years. I'll post a list you of all the attacks that have gone on and in many cases ignored by the public.
I disagree, I see these others who see us as a threat as bieng a good thing. Weekness in that part of the world gets you killed. I think we are seeing some other nations second guessing that strategy of letting the extremist infect their countries populace. They are seeing it becuase they are realizing that they are targets too of the terrorists. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. For years they've looked the other way, well now the chicken's come home to roost and they see the writing on the wall.
Bill,
I saw something to that effect about some of the Muslim nations but I didn't see that about Germany in the story. Do you have a link ?
"For years they've looked the other way, well now the chicken's come home to roost and they see the writing on the wall."
Three metaphors in one sentence!
That's gotta be a new record.
Do I win something, a Watch ? A trip to Bermuda ?
You can steal the prize if you hold the line against challengers who want to eat your lunch.
So they see him as a champion, what does that tell you about their mentality ?
Yes, that must be it. They as an entire nation must be mentally defective.
I The same poll also found they were disapointed that the Iraqi's didn't put up more of a fight.
Because they had hoped that the U.S. couldn't come in and simply do what it wanted without having to expend too much effort. Weren't you hoping Afghanistan would be able to put up more of a fight when the Russians invaded?
Do you know that some just simply don't want us to exist ?
Some. I don't believe it's a majority, though I'm sure it's probably growing right now.
I'm not being dramatic, they beleive all nonbeleivers are subhuman and should either convert or be given the sword.
And I've heard people over here say similar things to the effect that we should should just nuke the whole area. I would hope other countries aren't basing their policies on what these people say.
Tell me Alison, would you be upset about a poll that the KKK hates all who support equal rights ?
If I was black, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to hear that the KKK hated me. But I would definitely be worried if there was a poll that showed the number of white people who hated blacks and who thought the KKK had some good ideas was on the rise. And if it was on the rise because of something I was doing, you can bet I'd stop and think about whether or not that was really a good idea. Not because I'm giving into the KKK, but because clearly I'm making more enemies that I really don't need or want.
Terrorism = bad Bin Laden = Terrorism
No kidding ?
Ok then, you're with me so far...
They had it just as much before.
No, that's what the poll is saying. It's not just as much. It's gone up dramatically.
Really, where in the poll did it say that ?
Come on now, follow the logic. If people have a greater faith now in bin Laden to do "the right thing", and bin Laden stands for terrorism, then it follows that more people now believe that terrorism is the right thing to do. And indeed, we've begun to see a new wave of terrorism now, a resurgence of Al-Q, and the terror alert level hasn't dropped one bit from what it was before the war.
Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. For years they've looked the other way, well now the chicken's come home to roost and they see the writing on the wall.
If a greater and greater percentage of the population believes terrorism is a good thing, it will make it harder and harder for those governments to actually do anything about it. And if the gap between what the people want and what the government wants becomes too great, there could even actually be a revolution which certainly doesn't help our cause any.
I disagree, I see these others who see us as a threat as bieng a good thing.
I guess you like being the bully.
I've heard similar things said but I would say they are in the minority fortunatley, alot of it is simplistic rhetoric from the nuke the whole area crowd.
What if the only thing you were doing was being black. Pretty tough to stop being black unless you're Michael Jackson. If it was for something you said or did then yes you'd have to weigh wether or not you wanted to appease them so they'd not hate you as much. Good luck with that, If the brave souls who fought racsim in the late 50's and early 60's hadn't done so who knows where we'd be. They had 2 options, go along to get along and go with the status quo or fight back, doing so got all the racist idiots all upset becuase they liked things the way they were. Hate crimes, lynchings, went way up as did disdain for black people. Good thing they did REGARDLESS of public opinion at the time.
A bombing in S.A is a new wave ? Most people had never heard of AlQuieda or Bin Laden before 9-11, they were more active then than they are now. I'll post a list for you later today on terrorist acts and how many have gone on. This isn't new or some new wave. If so you'd have to also believe had we done nothing in Afghanistan or Iraq that attacks would stop. We tried that approach for 25 years. It didn't work.
BTW many of those same countries were upset about Afghanistan too, should we have done nothing in Afghanistan ?
Not at all, I'd prefer to not have to be worried about it and live in peace. I'd prefer if they quit teaching kids from the age of 5 to hate Jews and Americans and Westerners as subhuman. I'd prefer it if they didn't harbor terrorists, I'd prefer it if they didn't support the Imams or madrasas through open support or looking the other way. I'd prefer they didn't blame all their ills on the Jews and the West. I'd prefer they had freedom of the press. I'd prefer they stop hating because we aren't of their faith. I'd prefer they weren't ruled by kings, ogilarchy's or extremist zealous regimes. Mostly I'd prefer they quit targeting civilians to get a point across. It has nothing to do with beign or wanting to be a bully, it's called self defense and no matter what we might have done to upset them it doesn't equal the level of hatred you are seeing.
Strange, terrorism is perfectly acceptable behavior, but a legitimate government liberating a nation is considered being a bully.
I still want to know what the fringe would like the US to do.
BINGO ! Post of the day :)
It has something to do with either converting or ceasing to exist if we don't.
Dennis wanted something like an international council or discussion where every nation with a gripe against the U.S. would get to sit down and take their best shot.
Somehow, some way there's a group of people in this very country who won't stop until the U.S. Government apologizes for Sept. 11.
"Sorry we put you through all that trouble to plan and carry out an attack. It's our fault. We'll go away now."
Rick 6/4/03 11:23am
Sad isn't it.
Well said BTW.
What's your take on the Israel/Pal situation ?
IMO The Palestians and Arabs who use Israel as their goat are still going to hate them and us. I also think Bush might be giving the Palestinains eough rope to hang themselves with. A couple of bombings done by suicide attacker will throw it all away. Bush can say he tried and tell Sharon to do what he needs to do. I think it's a good political move and it might expose their ways for the rest of the world (except the fanatics).
That being said I hope and pray it works and somehow the 2 sides can have and live in peace. I wish I wa more oppomistic but I don't think so. Then again miricles happen so one can hope at least.
It's probably a moral failing on my part, but I've pretty much lost any sympathy I had for the Palistinians.
I dread any talk of peace between the two sides. Because it seems the moment there appears to be progress, that's when it's the most dangerous. I'm suppose to travel to the Middle East in September.
Rick 6/4/03 11:45am
I don't think you're alone there at all. I feel the same, I used to have sympathy for their cause.
I know. I hope everything goes well in your travels. What part may I ask ?
Bahrain. I'm not too worried about it. I'll lay low.
Rick 6/4/03 11:59am
You could always dress like a woman in full Hijab ;) Just kiddin'.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton
"We know he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons." Al Gore
"There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
"The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration." Defense Secretary William Cohen
"It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment. It (the U.N.) doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity." National Security Adviser Sandy Berger
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." Sen. Tom Daschle
"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description. France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach." Sen. John Kerry
What? That just doesn't make sense.
According to the Liberals today, there are no WMD.
I'm so confused.
Join the club. For me, it's been a confusing campaign from the outset.
...And it doesn't seem to be ending at Iraq's borders.
How many people, in command of troops, are saying right now "boy, I'd sure like to find out what's in Syria."
That was in the realm of "highly unlikely" a few weeks ago. Is it still?
Just to let you know that the French haven't stopped ribbing us.
Christian Berger, France's agricultural attache has been lobbying for the US to ease import restrictions that require that French cheese be pasteurized. They say the process wrecks the flavor and makes the cheese rubbery.
"We don't feel our cheeses are that much of a weapon of mass destruction," he told the Wall Street Journal.
A reporter can't resist a quote like that.
Bill,
Really. 30% ? Hmmm, Well if you're referring to normal troops doing that duty. You're correct. But their NOT reducing the numbers of inspectors. Nor have they run out of places to look, about a third of the sites have been inspected and those are just the ones inspected. There's also thousands of square miles that have to be covered. It's not a 30% reduction, it's an increase. Perhaps the reporter didn't bother to mention it. Here you go.
Huh ? I thought we were reducing them, that damn admin doesn't know what they're doin' !
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/31/sprj.irq.main/
Oh, and also this, more inspectors on top of that.
The U.N is sending IAEA (international atomic energy agency) to inspect a looted nuclear sight. Hundreds have became sick after a nuke sight was looted. Many are suffering from high doses of radiation. Thought they didn't have nukes ? Perhaps it was a docile holding sight but who knows. Either way there are more people looking at this stuff not less.
Bill, what do you think happened to those WMD's since Clinton was President?
You don't really think Saddam's heart softened and he got rid of them?
I don't believe a word Saddam says.
If those WMD's were there before, they're there now. We just haven't found them yet.
They know that JT, it's just not the politically expedient thing to do. Many who are on the where are the WMD bandwagon now were the same "experts" who said we were "bogged down" the it was a "bad plan" it was a quagmire and Vietnam part duex, oops. When they were proved dead wrong on that they switched gears. Then it was on to the horrid horrid looting of the museum. Not that the press will ever bother to retract that or admit they blew it way out of proportion or anything. For some reason it got major airplay, perhaps because they couldn't find anything else. It was widely reported that 170,000 pieces of artifacts were "looted". It's actually, ahem. 33. Yes 33 pieces. Yet the story was milked. Some called it a war crime. An attrocity. They claimed we guarded the oil ministry but not the museum. Of course that was false too but why let facts get in the way.
Here's an intersting retrospect of what was said and just some of the handwringing about the museum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974193,00.html
It was also used as a military c.p by the Iraqi's.
Then there was the whole BBC "piece" which people jumped on. That story has also been shot full of holes. (no pun intended) In fact the guy who wrote it is now trying to defend it but said this the other day in an interview. His name is Kampfner.
Bingo, dimwit. That kind of kills your whole premise for the story though.
In fact some here bought that too. Hmmm ?
Then of course who could forget the general looting too. Ah yes, the mayhem. Another exaggeration, it was the closest they came to being correct though because yes it actually happened, but it wasn't the scene it was made out to be either.
I spoke last week for an hour with the wife of a very close friend who is in Iraq right now. He had recently moved out of Bagdhad and was headed somewhere else. He's been in many parts of Iraq. He's said the same thing some others have said as well as is now coming out in some news outlets. The looting was exagerated too. Greatly in some cases. Absolutley it happened but after the first few days of freedom it died down. Also he said that 95% of the people he's had contact with are pleasant, grateful, curious etc. They do have suspicions of cousre, who wouldn't after 30 years of Saddamn. Most though have been positive interactions he said and people have been very appreciative. Where most of the reporters are going is the Sunni neighborhoods. They are intentionally being left of many of the process because they are also members or supporters of the Baath party. Makes sense to me, it would have been like getting rid of Adolf and leaving the Nazi's in charge. They are going to those neighborhoods to get ticked off Baath party members on film. Is everything perfect? Of course not, far from it. Yes their are differing opinions and factions. However it's not what's being portrayed in many supposed news outlets. Their are some infiltrators and Saddamn loyalists causing as much trouble as they can as well. It doesn't take many to do it but their numbers are small. It's stil dangerous there and will be until these dinks are rooted out. Personally I'd rather be in normal combat conditions than what is going on now. I'd much rather prefer I knew who my enemy was. Being in this situation is more scary for troops in some cases because it's an unkown.
So we had some "experts" Tell us the war would cause mass Iriaqi casualties, 150,000 at least, thousands of dead service men from street fighting. Israel would get pulled into the war and cause a nuclear showdown. This was just a few of the popular doomsday scenario's. Then we were in a quagmire, a plan gone wrong, it was all Rummy's fault. Then it was looting, then a museum, then a rescue that was apparently just staged. Now we've moved on to WMD's. See a pattern here at all ?
It doesn't bother anyone that they've been proven wrong at every turn so far, they'll plow ahead, hoping one of these times they might just be right. Then they can say see ! Told you so, we were right all along. Logic of course never enters the equation.
First can intelligence be bad ? Sure, it failed us on 9-11, it failed on the Cole, the Embassies, the WTC attack in 93' etc. etc. Apparently everyone was wrong then and Saddamn was squeaky clean. But yet the lack of logic or reasoning fails to answer these questions.
The U.N knew he had them, because, well, he did. They documented it.
Saddamns obligation was to prove he no longer had them, in 12 years he never did.
Perhaps Bill or others can answer these questions.
1) If Saddamn didn't have them, why would he wait so long to let inspectors back in? Why did he only do so when he had 200,000 troops on his border ?
2) If he destroyed them do you think for one second he wouldn't have called inspectors and invitred them over and gotten sanctions ended ?
3) Was everyone else who said he was a threat and had WMD's wrong too ?
4) Why if he didn't have them, knowing what could happen and he would die or at least lose power not have said o.k here you are, here's what I have or here's proof that I destroyed them. ?
There's plenty of common sense to answer those questions and the answers should be obvious. "Should" being the key word. If someone has a political bend it won't matter. Personally I want to find them because I want them out of circulation. If they don't or are buried underground in the desert and we don't find them for 20 years I don't care. IMO it was the right decision I've seen what this fuck is/was capable of. Leaving him in power wasn't an option. The other reason I hope we find them is because it will be just one more time those with a political bent will be proven dead wrong. Perhaps they can go back to lamenting 33 museum pieces stolen and feign outrage over that.
Meanwhile, last week a mass grave was discovered, it had over 200 CHILDREN in it who were shot or buried alive. Many were still clutching their dolls. Yea, Bush lied and Saddamn didn't he got rid of them on his own accord and Bush lied because he "wanted" a war.
Clinton may have believed that Iraq had weapons they shouldn't have, but he didn't institute a regime change. He pursued other courses of action more appropriate to the situation.
What Bush did was more akin to the following:
Bush: Drop your weapon!
Saddam: I don't have a weapon.
Bush: Drop your weapon or I'll shoot.
Saddam: I don't have a weapon.
Bush: I mean it, drop your weapon or I'll shoot!
Saddam: I don't have a weapon.
Hans Blix: I'm standing right here and I don't see a weapon.
Bush: I know you have a weapon. You had one last week. Take your clothes off, we're doing a strip search.
Saddam: Screw you!
Bush: {Bang bang bang bang bang)
Uniformed officer: (checking body) I'm not finding a weapon sir.
Bush: Well obviously he must have thrown it into the sewer as I was shooting him.
Sure, it might have been logical to think he had a gun in the example above, but that doesn't mean the response was appropriate.
And the one thing that still stands out to me as remarkably clear in this whole cat and mouse game is if Saddam had these weapons, why did he not use them when he was attacked? Why were these weapons not even deployed? I can maybe buy the argument that the order to use them never got handed down, but if that was the case, they should have been sitting there ready to use and would have been easily found. If the order to use them wasn't capable of being given, I very much doubt the order to hide them could have come down effectively. So without a doubt, these weapons were never even deployed. Our attack was hardly a surprise, so why is that? What reason could there have been other than that they simply weren't there to be used?
Many who are on the where are the WMD bandwagon now were the same "experts" who said we were "bogged down"
We are bogged down. We now have a military presence over there trying to run a country that increasingly doesn't want us there. Attacks on U.S. soldiers continues and the death toll rises.
the it was a "bad plan"
It was a bad plan. Especially if there had actually been weapons of mass destruction there in which case it would have been a very ugly war. And it seems like inadequate planning was done for the aftermath. They've already fired the first person they had in charge of the job.
Then it was on to the horrid horrid looting of the museum.
Well apparently someone got it wrong when they said the museum was looted. So the premise was faulty. But all the conclusions drawn from that premise were entirely correct. If all those items were gone, it definitely would have been a tragedy on par with the burning of the library of Alexandria.
They claimed we guarded the oil ministry but not the museum. Of course that was false too but why let facts get in the way.
I haven't followed this story that closely since I haven't run across many articles on it, but how is it false? We didn't guard the oil ministry? Or we did guard the museum?
1) If Saddamn didn't have them, why would he wait so long to let inspectors back in? Why did he only do so when he had 200,000 troops on his border ?
Let's quote jethro on that one. Was he not the one that said people in that culture respect a show of strength? Saddam wasn't going to stay in power for his brilliant domestic policies. The way he attracted followers was by being the one guy that would stand up to the U.S. He'd only back down when he absolutely had to, but otherwise it was to his advantage to constantly push the line.
2) If he destroyed them do you think for one second he wouldn't have called inspectors and invitred them over and gotten sanctions ended ?
See above. Calling attention to his compliance would have helped him internationally, but not domestically. Though I can't really explain why he would then bother to comply at all except to maybe guess that he didn't want to actually get caught with them or that he preferred to spend his money on palaces.
3) Was everyone else who said he was a threat and had WMD's wrong too ?
Apparently. At least on that specific count.
4) Why if he didn't have them, knowing what could happen and he would die or at least lose power not have said o.k here you are, here's what I have or here's proof that I destroyed them. ?
Don't know. Maybe he thought that if he did that he'd lose his domestic power. Maybe he was of a mentality that he'd rather die fighting than give in to the Americans. Maybe he was losing his mental faculties and thought he really could win the war. I still say the bigger question is if he did have them, why didn't he use them, or at least deploy them?
Like launching cruise missles ?
Yea, that did the trick.
That's the exact reason he didsn't use them in 91' when he had them. He also knew if he used them this time he was screwed in the P.R war he hoped to win and anyone sympathetic to him would have turned.
Before the war that order could have easily come down before comm was cut.
Right, just like in 91'. He had them then too. It was kind of a big reasons behind that whole sanctions thing.
You're right our attack hardly was a suprise. Oh BTW, the cops are going to look in your house next week for pot. I hope they don't find any.
His Co's also knew the probable outcome of the war, they also know that the public tends to be a bit touchy about war criminals.
You're also talking about small weaponry it's a massive place with alot of places to hide things. It'd not like Nuclear missles where you have to have large facilities, transporters, fuel trucks for delivery systems, crews to man them, launchers or in ground silo's. You could probably fit enough to kill 100,000 people in you car. No go find it in the desert.
That's the exact reason he didsn't use them in 91' when he had them. He also knew if he used them this time he was screwed in the P.R war he hoped to win and anyone sympathetic to him would have turned.
If he had all these reasons for not using them, why even bother having them?
Oh BTW, the cops are going to look in your house next week for pot. I hope they don't find any.
Ummm, ok, whatever. As long as it's not Bush looking for it because then apparently I would have some, I'd just be hiding it so well that no one could find it.
AW,
Right.
Then it was on to the horrid horrid looting of the museum.
Right, IF it happened. Sheesh.
Here's a good article from Guardian UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974193,00.html
Allison,
A deterrent, that's why anyone has them.
Then why didn't he let them in and end sanctions if he didn't have them ?
One question.
Why should anyone believe a word Saddam said in regards to WMD?
'Bill - Fold' 6/10/03 10:06am
So why all the handwringing ? We don't know, let's give it a bit before we start the lynch mob.
As JT said, why would anyone believe what Saddamn says anyways.
Allison Wonderland 6/10/03 10:16am
Sorry, I'm not about to start using Jethro to make a point :) Yikes.
If you want to, feel free.
Only one thing wrong with your little scenerio there Allison. Bush should have shot after the 1st warning.
Will there be a warning the next time?
Rick 6/10/03 10:52am
Well I hope it's not a 12 year warning.
I just love these so called scholars. Blame Bush for not protecting 1 museum in the entire country. If they were so damned concerned, why weren't they over there themselves to protect it.
And just how is Iraq suppose to rebuild? With museum pieces or secured oil fields?
And how are the Iraqi people suppose to eat? Museum pieces are probably not very tastey. But oil sure can buy a lot of food. I wonder how much medicine oil can buy?
Why should anyone believe a word Saddam said in regards to WMD?
Well you can't just automatically assume the opposite either. And why do you keep asking that as if any of this was based solely on something Saddam said?
Only one thing wrong with your little scenerio there Allison. Bush should have shot after the 1st warning.
I hope you're not a cop in the Twin Cities.
In his dreams he is.
Now wait a second, if you claim not to have a weapon, you don't use the weapon, and you don't even deploy it out in the field, how is it a deterrent?
Why should anyone believe a word Saddam said in regards to WMD?
So you're saying he'd tell the truth possibly. O.K then let's assume he got rid of them all on his own. He just decided one day while sitting on the shitter reading the sports section to get rid of all his WMD's. Then why kick out inspectors ? Why not call Hans and say , c'mon over. I'm clean as a whistle. Fact is and you know it is that he didn't. He did everything he could to delay and deciveve. Why not do it to not only put egg on the UN and more importantly the US ? Why not do it and get sanctions ended ? Sanctions were hurting his country and his personal wealth, it would have helped him internationally and domestically. With sanctions gone he had even more power and money, he would have gotten rid of the UN once and for all, he would ahve emerged as victorious in standing up to the west, starting a war and still keeping power. It was a win win for him so why didn't he do it if he was clean ?
Well, JT's the one who asked it but you have 2 sides of the story, Saddamn on one side and the UN and US on the other. Someone wasn't tellign the truth. Let's see, hmm. I can either believe Bush, the UN, Clinton, Albright, Powell, Daschle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Lieberman etc. etc... Or.......... a guy who had 200 kids executed and thousands more and dropped folks into shredders for sport. A guy who lied and obstructed for 12 years the deal he made to end the war he started in the first place. A guy who had WMD's and used them before too. So we have 2 sides and one wasn't telling the truth,,,,Let me think about it for a second.
Yeah, another 12 year warning will do.
Then why kick out inspectors ?
I already answered all that.
Well, JT's the one who asked it
And why do you keep assuming all my posts are in response to you?
but you have 2 sides of the story, Saddamn on one side and the UN and US on the other.
No, that's totally missing the point of the question. Determining whether or not Iraq had banned weapons was a little more complicated than simply asking Saddam if he did. He said he didn't, which granted doesn't count for much, though it still stands in contrast to North Korea going around saying, "hell yes we have them, what are you going to do about it?" The Iraqi officials we've captured have said they didn't have them. At this point do you think they'd gladly give them up for a plea bargain? There's the fact that they didn't use them or even deploy them. There's the fact that we haven't found any. There's a lot more to determining the truth of the matter than just whether or not you believe Saddam.
Who's this Saddam that ya'll talk about?
Then why kick out inspectors ?
Right and there's no logical reason for him to do so. If he didn't have them, no point in booting them. No point in delaying and saying we couldn't go here or there. It didn't benefit him economically. Think about this for a moment. His WMD's or at least failure to allow full inspections cost him millions and still he did it. That's how important he thought they were as he saw it as some sort of equalizer. Politically it didn't benefit him, not only monetarily but within the world community. Internally I don't think he cared one way or another what happened to his citizens obviously. It cost him alot and in the end his power and probably his life. If didn't have them, why would he not have invited everyone for a look. Fact is he didn't and broke every resolution the UN put forth.
It was his requirement under the deal he agreed to to end the war that he started. He never once provided full information or full unfettered access to inspections. He laways wanted to negotiate when there was nothing to negotiate. It wasn't his perogative. The burden was on him to show what he did or didn't have and to show what he destroyed, that burden was on him alone, not the UN or the US. Our role was to enforce the mandates which we thankfully did.
So you're saying you want us to attack North Korea ? Where's the UN on this one, still haven't heard from them on that. I guess it's o.k if we're unilateralist if they don't want to deal with it. The North Korea situation is totally different. They are surrounded by nations unfriendly to it. They are isolated and can be dealt with probably economically since they are dependant on outside aid to survive. In essence they are blackmailing us for something they alreaddy blackmailed us once on. They said to Mr. Clinton , hey give us money and aid and we'll drop the Nukes. So we did, now their back after they broke the agreement because they want more. Feed a raccoon and see how many times they come back. Totally different situation in a totally different part of the world with different cultures and values.
They said they didn't have them in 91'. They did. They didn't use them then either. Conditions also have to be just right to use them or you'll take out your own troops as well. Why were there thousands upon thousands of new issue mop gear the Iraqi's had ? No point in mop gear unless they were worried we'd use never gas on them. It's not a matter of beleiving Saddamn. Anyone who does is frankly a moron. It comes down to knowing the facts. Which were he had them so he either A) hid them or b) shipped them or sold them to another nation) or C) destroyed them because he was a nice guy or D) destroyed them right before the inspectors got there or before the war started. Either way he violated umpteen resolutions, either way he was a murderous fuck. He funded terrorist, their were training camps and Iraqi officials met with AQ leaders. I doubt it was to discuss human rights issues. Either way the world is better off without this scurge. Yea I know, some parts you don't feel are, tell that to the parents of the kids found shot clutching their dolls. He was a danger to us and to the mideast. Great armies aren't needed to cause havoc as we've seen 19 men can do. I don't think people get it yet or understand the threats we face.
Luv2Fly 6/10/03 4:43pm
I do applaud the effort you are making.
I guess common sense would dictate that the administration should get more time with this weapons search. But seeing as how they have had difficult time finding their two biggest bogeymen (one for more than a year and a half, now) how long does this have to go on before at least Tenant's job is on the line?
Is there a limit to Republican or Conservative patience with this?