Cheney just won't quit

[Agamemnon]

There's an article in the Times about Cheney's words in a town-hall style meeting. He apparently believes that recent reports proving that Iraq had no WMD's justifies the invasion of Iraq. His logic (apparently) is that because there were no WMD's, it was a good time to attack... cause they were going to be there soon.

Is it just me, or is the NYTimes a little more critical of Bush than supportive? They seem to run a lot more anti-administration pieces than those supporting Bush.

Also a surprising comment generally from Cheney, I personally thought he won the debate against Edwards. Why are Republican feet recently being jammed into Republican mouths?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/A...artner=homepage

[CaramonLS]

As soon as something turns out to be False they just scratch it off the list and keep on moving down.

1. Al-Queda has ties to Iraq - wait thats not true.
2. Iraq has WMDs - Nope.
3. Iraq is assisting Osama Bin Laden - Nope.
4. Iraq poses a big threat to the United states... well no not really.

"well the people are free at least".

[RougeUnderoos]

Sweet merciful crap, do people actually buy this line of reasoning? And they say Kerry flip-flops.

March 2003: "We will invade Iraq because Iraq has all sorts of terrible WMD"
October 2004 "I know Iraq doesn't have any WMD, that's why we invaded"

That's the message. That is what he is trying to sell to the American people. It's bloody ludicrous

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 7 2004, 06:22 PM
Sweet merciful crap, do people actually buy this line of reasoning? And they say Kerry flip-flops.

March 2003: "We will invade Iraq because Iraq has all sorts of terrible WMD"
October 2004 "I know Iraq doesn't have any WMD, that's why we invaded"

That's the message. That is what he is trying to sell to the American people. It's bloody ludicrous

Actually, his message is grasped from the very report that says there is no WMD.

The report states Saddam was subverting the UN Oil for Food program, bribing key officials in other countries in a long term attempt to have sanctions drop. The report also concludes Saddam would have resumed WMD production once sanctions were gone.

All that is in the New York Times today as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/po...saddam.html?hp

However, the bottom line is that WMD wasn't there. The Bush/Cheney team have lost the key underpinning of their war reasoning . . . . so its on to Plan B to get re-elected. Here's the new message from Bush himself today - will it fly?

"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil for food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

"He could have passed that knowledge onto our terrorist enemies," Bush said. "Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, a sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror operating in the world's most volatile region. In the world after Sept. 11, he was a threat we had to confront and America and the world are safer for our actions."

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

So in other words the message is "If we had eventually let up on the sanctions and looked away*, then he would have started his weapons program and been quickly succesful**, and then he might*** have given the weapons to terrorists"?

*The US was not going to let up on the sanctions so this all falls apart right off the bat. Nobody was going to be "looking away" any time soon.
** Knowing the ruin that country was in, and for some strange reason everyone dropped the sanctions and "looked away" it would have been a hell of a long time before they were operational and pumping out poison. How many years do you think it would be until everyone started ignoring a dictator in the Middle East? I'll guess "lots of years". Then the acquisition and the buildup begins.
***Maybe. Probably not. George knows full well that Osama and the boys were not too fond of Saddam. I don't know if he'd give his "sworn enemy" the means to end his own life/regime

In other words, what a crock.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 7 2004, 06:57 PM
*The US was not going to let up on the sanctions so this all falls apart right off the bat. Nobody was going to be "looking away" any time soon.
** Knowing the ruin that country was in, and for some strange reason everyone dropped the sanctions and "looked away" it would have been a hell of a long time before they were operational and pumping out poison. How many years do you think it would be until everyone started ignoring a dictator in the Middle East? I'll guess "lots of years". Then the acquisition and the buildup begins.

The Washington Post today with an examination of the effectiveness of Saddam's plans to circumvent sanctions, with a quote from the Duelfer report:

Saddam Hussein made $11 billion in illegal income and eroded the world's toughest economic embargo during his final years as Iraq's leader through shrewd schemes to secretly buy off dozens of countries, top foreign officials and major international figures, according to a new report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector released yesterday.

"The success of Hussein's regime in circumventing the U.N. embargo is "grossly obvious," the report says. "It is also grossly obvious how the sanctions perverted not just the [Iraqi] national system of finance and economics, but to some extent the international markets and organizations."

"Despite U.N. sanctions, many countries and companies engaged in prohibited procurement with the Iraqi regime throughout the 1990s, largely because of the profitability of such trade," Duelfer reported. In turn, Hussein sought to make the embargo a "paper tiger," the report says.

Companies in countries closely allied with the United States, including France, Italy, India, Turkey, Jordan and Romania, may have sold Hussein dual-purpose equipment that could be converted for production of unconventional weapons.

Nothing was there but the Bush team will cling to these findings from the same report.

You may have to register to view the entire article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2004Oct6.html

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

So who's fault is it that the sanctions on Iraq didn't work, Saddam, who was bribing foreign officials and engaged in international smuggling, or the corporations and (bribed) foreign officials who allowed it to happen. Seems that if you want an embargo to be effective on a state, you have to enforce it. It does no good if a state imposes sanctions, and then it's officials and companies ignore them.

Do sanctions even work? Iraqi's starve, Saddam makes 11 Billion? Something doesn't make sense here.

[Cowperson]

As an addendum to the debate, this article starts out with the German spy chief saying Osama is alive and well and controlling al-Qada but for our purposes he goes on to say its in the interests of the international community to stabilize Iraq, which seems a fundamental shift from the general view of his government.

Germany, along with France and Russia, was a leading opponent of the war in Iraq and has refused to send troops.

But Hanning said all countries now have a stake in the country’s future because Islamic radicalism posed a global threat.

“That is why all of us have a common interest, whether we take part in the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq or not,” he said. “This country must be stabilized.”

There's a growing sense out there that the international community is simply waiting for the USA election and a possible change of government before internationalizing Iraq. His comments would seem to confirm that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6198344/

Cowperson

[arsenal]

Originally posted by rougeunderoos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rougeunderoos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
*The US was not going to let up on the sanctions so this all falls apart right off the bat. Nobody was going to be "looking away" any time soon.
[/b]

Lots of countries had looked the other way. Key officials in the UN had looked the other way. Hence why Saddam was making a killing on the UN Oil for Food program.

<!--QuoteBegin-rogueunderoos

** Knowing the ruin that country was in, and for some strange reason everyone dropped the sanctions and "looked away" it would have been a hell of a long time before they were operational and pumping out poison. How many years do you think it would be until everyone started ignoring a dictator in the Middle East? I'll guess "lots of years". Then the acquisition and the buildup begins.
[/quote]
After WWI, Germany was in a awful state. Along comes Hitler, removes all competition, and starts a build up of arms. When did Hitler come into power?
I beleive it was around 1933. WWII was declared in 1939. That is pretty quick in the grand sceme of things. Oh, and during this time, Germany was under sanctions, and not allowed to form a military. The rest of the world just looked the other way.
Germany took over Austria, the world looked the other way.
Finally it got to a point where war was the only option.
If the world had stood up, and performed a pre-emptive strike against Germany, during this time, WWII may have been avoided. But we don't know that for sure.

I am not saying that Iraq is exactly the same as Germany Pre-WWII, but there are alarming similarities.
Saddam invaded Kuwaitt, had a war with Iran, funded sucide bombers families.
The only way to know for sure if removing Saddam from power now was a good thing, is go back, to before the invasion, and live out the other alternative.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 7 2004, 08:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 7 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Lots of countries had looked the other way. Key officials in the UN had looked the other way. Hence why Saddam was making a killing on the UN Oil for Food program.

<!--QuoteBegin-rogueunderoos

** Knowing the ruin that country was in, and for some strange reason everyone dropped the sanctions and "looked away" it would have been a hell of a long time before they were operational and pumping out poison.# How many years do you think it would be until everyone started ignoring a dictator in the Middle East?# I'll guess "lots of years".# Then the acquisition and the buildup begins.

After WWI, Germany was in a awful state. Along comes Hitler, removes all competition, and starts a build up of arms. When did Hitler come into power?
I beleive it was around 1933. WWII was declared in 1939. That is pretty quick in the grand sceme of things. Oh, and during this time, Germany was under sanctions, and not allowed to form a military. The rest of the world just looked the other way.
Germany took over Austria, the world looked the other way.
Finally it got to a point where war was the only option.
If the world had stood up, and performed a pre-emptive strike against Germany, during this time, WWII may have been avoided. But we don't know that for sure.

I am not saying that Iraq is exactly the same as Germany Pre-WWII, but there are alarming similarities.
Saddam invaded Kuwaitt, had a war with Iran, funded sucide bombers families.
The only way to know for sure if removing Saddam from power now was a good thing, is go back, to before the invasion, and live out the other alternative. [/b][/quote]
Why didn't they take out Saddam in the first gulf war?

[arsenal]

Becuase the UN resolution only allowed for the removal of Iraq from Kuwaitt.

Bush Sr. did try to get the people to rise up against Saddam, but Saddam gassed
them and that was the end of that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Any comparison of Iraq to Nazi Germany is, to put it bluntly, weak.

We know -- it's a matter of fact -- that Saddam was not building WMD. It's a fact. He wouldn't be doing it right now or any time in the foreseeable future either. Would he like to? Of course. But he wouldn't be able to. During 12 years of sanctions, they got nothing done towards building WMD. The sanctions weren't going to stop any time soon.

George can spout his theories about the world one day just "looking away" from Iraq, but that simply was not going to happen.

George's scenario, if it were to happen exactly as he said it, would take years and years to pan out. Before he was an imminent threat, now they are saying he was a threat only if a rather complicated and lengthy dropping of sanctions and building an entire weapons program from scratch and then giving those weapons to his own enemy (al-qaeda) happened, then he would have been a threat.

He's trying to say he was right all along. It's just not true.

[arsenal]

But why then even allow the chance for it to pan out?
So that say 10 years down the road, a terrorist group did get a nuclear weapon from Saddam, and detonated it inside the US.
The whole could of been avoided, if Saddam had been removed from power.
Its a matter of removing an unkown from an equation, and replacing it with a known value. You then get a deffinate answer.

If Hitler had been removed, or if the League of Nations had stood up to Hitler before the decleration of WWII, the whole thing could of been avoided.
Millions of people would still be alive.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 7 2004, 03:40 PM
But why then even allow the chance for it to pan out?
So that say 10 years down the road, a terrorist group did get a nuclear weapon from Saddam, and detonated it inside the US.
The whole could of been avoided, if Saddam had been removed from power.
Its a matter of removing an unkown from an equation, and replacing it with a known value. You then get a deffinate answer.

If Hitler had been removed, or if the League of Nations had stood up to Hitler before the decleration of WWII, the whole thing could of been avoided.
Millions of people would still be alive.

Literally hundreds of different things could happen in that region in the future. Starting a massive and destabilizing war on one single and rather unlikely "what if" is A) Really bad planning and B ) Simply not what they did. They have changed their story and the war was not fought on these grounds.

The war was never premised on some fantasy of "We must remove an unknown from the equation to replace it with a known value because, hey, you just don't know what they are up to".

It was premised on Iraq being an imminent threat with stockpiles of WMD and a friend to al-qaeda. Not in the future, but right now. That is what they said. The story has changed completely now that the truth comes out. They got caught being obviously wrong and now they are trying to weasel out of it with some lame theory based entirely on predicting the future of a somewhat volatile region.

Hitler and Germany have nothing to do with this whatsoever.

EDIT: to remove unintentional smiley

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 7 2004, 09:13 PM
Any comparison of Iraq to Nazi Germany is, to put it bluntly, weak.

That is correct. It is the United States who has taken the actions of the Nazis. I don't seem to recall the Third Reich being invaded by Poland. Then again, the Bush administration has a habit of changing history to their liking, so anything is possible.

[Cowperson]

I don't seem to recall the Third Reich being invaded by Poland.

According to the Nazi's, the Poles did invade Germany or, at the least, they said the Poles had attacked a bunch of border crossings and killed Germans.

Cowperson

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 7 2004, 03:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 7 2004, 03:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 7 2004, 09:13 PM
Any comparison of Iraq to Nazi Germany is, to put it bluntly, weak.#

That is correct. It is the United States who has taken the actions of the Nazis. I don't seem to recall the Third Reich being invaded by Poland. Then again, the Bush administration has a habit of changing history to their liking, so anything is possible. [/b][/quote]
Both of you state that comparing Saddam Iraq to Nazi Germany is to put it bluntly, weak. What is your reasoning behind this?

Iraq invaded Kuwaitt for the purpose of conquest.
Saddam had killed anyone that spoke out against him, offered any threat to his dictorship rule.
Saddam had used chemical weapons on his own people to squel a rebellion.

Germany invaded Austria, Poland, France, Russia, etc for the purpose of conquest.
Hitler ordered the execution of 6 million + Jews, as well as other minorities.
Hitler killed anyone that spoke out against him, or offered any threat to his dictatorship rule.

The US invaded Iraq for the purpose of finding WMD, liberating the people of Iraq, and to make the world a safer place.
The US also invaded Afganistan. Removed the Taliban from power, and the country is now on the verge its first deocratic election.
But that one is ok, becuase there is a known link to terror.
Invading Iraq is not ok, becuase Saddam is not a terrorist, and doesn't support terrorist.

If you remember back after Sept 11, Bush made a speech. In that he said something along the lines of the following:
We will hunt down the terrorists. We will not make any distinction between the terrorists, and those that harbour them, allowing them to operate freely inside their boarders.

Edited for spelling.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 7 2004, 05:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 7 2004, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

That is correct. It is the United States who has taken the actions of the Nazis. I don't seem to recall the Third Reich being invaded by Poland. Then again, the Bush administration has a habit of changing history to their liking, so anything is possible.

Both of you state that comparing Saddam Iraq to Nazi Germany is to put it bluntly, weak. What is your reasoning behind this?

Iraq invaded Kuwaitt for the purpose of conquest.
Saddam had killed anyone that spoke out against him, offered any threat to his dictorship rule.
Saddam had used chemical weapons on his own people to squel a rebellion.

Germany invaded Austria, Poland, France, Russia, etc for the purpose of conquest.
Hitler ordered the execution of 6 million + Jews, as well as other minorities.
Hitler killed anyone that spoke out against him, or offered any threat to his dictatorship rule.

The US invaded Iraq for the purpose of finding WMD, liberating the people of Iraq, and to make the world a safer place.
The US also invaded Afganistan. Removed the Taliban from power, and the country is now on the verge its first deocratic election.
But that one is ok, becuase there is a known link to terror.
Invading Iraq is not ok, becuase Saddam is not a terrorist, and doesn't support terrorist.

If you remember back after Sept 11, Bush made a speach. In that he said something along the lines of the following:
We will hunt down the terrorists. We will not make any distinction between the terrorists, and those that harbour them, allowing them to operate freely inside their boarders. [/b][/quote]
It's weak because compared to Hitler, Saddam was weak. Not even weak but inconsequential. Hitler almost won WWII for crying out loud. They didn't use the term "superpower" back then, but Germany was one of them. He was close to conquering the whole of Europe. Nazi Germany was actually (unlike Iraq for the past decade) a threat. A really big one.

Iraq on the other hand lost a war to a third-world nation, then invaded a tiny neighbour and proceeded to get their asses kicked out of it and since then they've a strangled country with a rapidly decaying military and a non-existent weapons program. It's a ridiculous comparison.

What's the point of paraphrasing Bush's overly simplistic speeches? I heard them too. They don't change anything and they certainly don't offer a justification for the Iraq war.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by arsenal

I am not saying that Iraq is exactly the same as Germany Pre-WWII, but there are alarming similarities.

I posted those similarities that I saw. Those similarities are in my mind the most alarming. What difference does it make if Saddam was inept as a military leader?
That doesn't change the fact he killed his own people on a daily basis. That he terrorised his own people, the same way Hitler did.

That being said, the allies could of stopped at the German boarders, outlined pre-WWII, tried to contain Hitler inside his boarders. That wouldn't not of kept Hitler from continuing his ethnic-cleansing. They reconized that doing that would be a diservice to the people of Germany, and drove to remove Hitler from power.

I never said Saddam was a brilliant military tactician. Hitler had his moments, but he got greedy and went after Russia, with whom he had signed a treaty.
The Russians had the same amount of soilders on the eastern front, as Germany had in all of Europe. So, its no wonder that they lost. Not to mention that Hitler had to battle on 2 fronts, once the allies invaded Europe.

Non-existent weapons program? There are confirmed reports that Iraq had a fully functional weapons program, up untill the sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Including a nuclear weapons program.

As for Bush's speech, I beleive it means ALL terrorists. I am sure, you will agree with me that Saddam would be considered a terrorist by most countries. It was also proven that he supported sucide bomber families. So, if your definition of a terrorist is one that only defines a terrorist as someone that attacks the US, using terrorist means, then you are correct. Saddam wouldn't be considered a terrorist. If your definition of terrorist is one that uses terrorist tactics against anyone (including his own countrymen), then Saddam is a terrorist under that definition.

edidted for clarity.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 7 2004, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 7 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-arsenal

I am not saying that Iraq is exactly the same as Germany Pre-WWII, but there are alarming similarities.

I posted those similarities that I saw. Those similarities are in my mind the most alarming. What difference does it make if Saddam was inept as a military leader?
That doesn't change the fact he killed his own people on a daily basis. That he terrorised his own people, the same way Hitler did.

That being said, the allies could of stopped at the German boarders, outlined pre-WWII, tried to contain Hitler inside his boarders. That wouldn't not of kept Hitler from continuing his ethnic-cleansing. They reconized that doing that would be a diservice to the people of Germany, and drove to remove Hitler from power.

I never said Saddam was a brilliant military tactician. Hitler had his moments, but he got greedy and went after Russia, with whom he had signed a treaty.
The Russians had the same amount of soilders on the eastern front, as Germany had in all of Europe. So, its no wonder that they lost. Not to mention that Hitler had to battle on 2 fronts, once the allies invaded Europe.

Non-existent weapons program? There are confirmed reports that Iraq had a fully functional weapons program, up untill the sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Including a nuclear weapons program.

As for Bush's speech, I beleive it means ALL terrorists. I am sure, you will agree with me that Saddam would be considered a terrorist by most countries. It was also proven that he supported sucide bomber families. So, if your definition of a terrorist is one that only defines a terrorist as someone that attacks the US, using terrorist means, then you are correct. Saddam wouldn't be considered a terrorist. If your definition of terrorist is one that uses terrorist tactics against anyone (including his own countrymen), then Saddam is a terrorist under that definition.

edidted for clarity. [/b][/quote]
Whatever. If you see alarming similarities, that's your business. Who the hell said Saddam was a "brilliant military tactician"? I certainly wasn't me. He was obviously a terrible military tactician because he always lost.

Non-existent weapons program? There are confirmed reports that Iraq had a fully functional weapons program, up untill the sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Including a nuclear weapons program.

The end of the first Gulf War was a long time ago. Things have changed.

These arguments are so goddamn pointless I don't know why I bother. They were wrong. They said he was a threat and he was not a threat. Period. They were wrong. It's not just my opinion, the people in the administration are saying the same damn thing as I am. Cheney says there were no WMD, Rumsfeld says there is no connection to al-Qaeda, Bremer says there aren't enough troops there, Rice says they messed up, the President himself said they had an itelligence failure. You are contradicting the very people who's policy you are trying to defend. It doesn't make sense.

Be realistic ferchrissakes. It's over. The jig is up.