2004 Reasons to Boot Bush...

[transplant99]

I cant believe there are still people claiming that Iraq didnt have chem/bio weapons.

He did. We know that. He used them before. Where are they now? Since? Who knows except Hussein and his top henchmen.

So to claim that Bush "lied" about Hussein having these things is the "lie".

Bush, Bush Sr., Clinton, Putin, Chirac, and about 3000 others ALL said they were there.

Here is a story that proves it beyond doubt.

Husseins use of weapons

Now to say that the US and its coalition had no reason to invade Iraq without UN approval is one thing. To say that they LIED about the weapon reason is a completely different animal.

As for the rest of the crap in this thread...im too tired to answer at this point with having to battle two hurricanes in two weeks.

Just use some common sense folks. The things existed, no question. Did Hussein just stop making them because he is a good guy? He was pretty aggressive towards his neighbors as far as invasions. Why would he just toss away one of his abilities to control people?

Even the UN said that a WHOLE PILE of the things are/were unaccounted for in Husseins declaration to the UN in December of 02. David Kay who was Chief Weapons Inspector for the years prior to getting booted in 98 agrees they were there, but finding them was a longshot.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 18 2004, 11:08 AM
Did Hussein just stop making them because he is a good guy?

No he was forced to stop making them. I have vague recollections of a war and during that war they bombed the holy snot out of everything. Then for the next 12 years they had some pretty harsh sanctions and bombs dropping and inspectors roaming around looking for more stuff.

I think it's time to give up the ghost on this one Tranny. Everyone else has. I don't think they lied either but it's pretty obvious they were wrong.

[Savvy27]

Geez, you sure wouldn't want to send your army of trained killers someplace where someone might get hurt!!

Not unless I had a good reason for doing so. But, thats what this is really all about isn't it?

Liberating Iraqi's was about fifth on the list of priorities if you ask me. There's lots of places you can go to save people with less hassle.

I totally agree with you. It's just that the liberation of Iraqi's climbed it's way up closer to the top as the main priorities were facing more and more questions.

You did? That was a little extreme wasn't it? The guy was going to walk in a few months whether you traded him or not. Waste of a sweater if you asked me. STOP READING ERIC FRANCIS!!

It's something that was not one of my proudest moments and something that I probably would not do again. Just in the emotion of the time I was trying to stand up for what I believed in. To be honest I didn't REALLY throw it over, I just pretended to because deep down the jersey still meant a lot to me... :P

Nasty world ain't it?

It certainly can be. Until there comes a few great leaders with answers to some of these questions that don't seem to have any, there are just going to be more and more questions. (Sadly I don't see Bush, Kerry, Blair, Putin, Martin or any other candidate in an influential country as one of these leaders)

If they lied about WMD, they would have planted the evidence to support their claims later too. If wishes were fishes. . . .

Yeah, I'm actually starting to think that they really did believe there would be WMD's, and thats why they didn't plant any. But, the fact that they haven't been found is another question of leadership. The evidence could not have been rock-solid because there haven't been any weapons found, so there was a judgement call made by the administration.

I'll just state the obvious though - if the local lunatics weren't going around blowing things up in Iraq

Honestly its really sad that they don't realize that they are slowing the rebuilding of their nation and the exit of the occupying nations.

[jonesy]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 17 2004, 04:50 PM
Well, Saddam was backed and supported by the USA in the war against Iran. This was also when he gassed the Kurds, no one raised a fuss then about that. At the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi's were encouraged to revolt by the Bush Sr. admin with promised American aid, but when they did they recieved no help from Bush Sr. Saddam moved south, crushed that revolt, then moved North and eliminated the northern one...

That is patently false, why do you say things if you don't know them to be true? Did you not hear of the no fly zones over N and S Iraq which the AMERICANS invested their time and money to protect the Kurds from their own president who was systematically killing them? Note that there were no French or Russians helping with this, only the UK.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Savvy27@Sep 18 2004, 07:09 PM
Geez, you sure wouldn't want to send your army of trained killers someplace where someone might get hurt!!

Not unless I had a good reason for doing so. But, thats what this is really all about isn't it?

I gathered from your earlier comment that you would not send an Army into harms way. A leader who doesn't consider war an option - in some circumstances -is more dangerous than one who does.

And yes, this election, among other things, appears to be a referendum on whether this conflict was justified.

Honestly its really sad that they don't realize that they are slowing the rebuilding of their nation and the exit of the occupying nations.

For most of the groups, the goal appears to be keeping the USA engaged and tied down until forced to withdraw in defeat. Preventing the rebuilding of Iraq would be central to that goal. Just don't say "they don't realize that they are slowing the rebuilding of their nation." They understand that perfectly well.

A good treatise on "Why Iraq Isn't Getting Better," in a government controlled/Liberal controlled mainstream media source, Time Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...00.html?cnn=yes

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by jonesy+Sep 18 2004, 07:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jonesy @ Sep 18 2004, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 17 2004, 04:50 PM
Well, Saddam was backed and supported by the USA in the war against Iran. This was also when he gassed the Kurds, no one raised a fuss then about that. At the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi's were encouraged to revolt by the Bush Sr. admin with promised American aid, but when they did they recieved no help from Bush Sr. Saddam moved south, crushed that revolt, then moved North and eliminated the northern one...

That is patently false, why do you say things if you don't know them to be true? Did you not hear of the no fly zones over N and S Iraq which the AMERICANS invested their time and money to protect the Kurds from their own president who was systematically killing them? Note that there were no French or Russians helping with this, only the UK. [/b][/quote]
That was years after the Kurds were gassed. At the time Hussein gassed the Kurds, America was trying to strengthen relations with Saddam Hussein and did their best to portray him in a positive light and downplayed the attack on the Kurds.

BTW, the CIA is still not 100% sure that it wasn't the Iranians. Bodies exhumed show that the type of gas that was used was British manufactured and likely sold to Iran. It is still unknown how Hussein got it from Iran, if he did in fact.

http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=24474
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078168

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/04/64679.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article....3/09/29/155243

The original NY times article is copied here:

http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/020303C.htm

[HOZ]

Well, Saddam was backed and supported by the USA in the war against Iran.

Is that where he got all his T-72 tanks, MIG fighters and AK-47's? The OTHER super power supported him to a far greater degree. The invasion took everyone by surprise. Hardly a supervised American planned action by any means.


This was also when he gassed the Kurds, no one raised a fuss then about that.

Really? I remember a big fuss was made. But then why does the USA have to make a all the fuss all the time? What about our Euro-friends or our Canuck gov't? Where were they?


At the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi's were encouraged to revolt by the Bush Sr. admin with promised American aid, but when they did they recieved no help from Bush Sr. Saddam moved south, crushed that revolt, then moved North and eliminated the northern one...

You can probably read Swartzkoff's (sp?) somewhewre or Collin Powell's that they felt the biggest mistake the USA made was agreeing to allow the Iraqi's to fly their helicopters in the ceasefire agreement. Had they not the insurection would have likely succeeded in the South and North. No doubt the US left them hanging. But it was Hussein that killed them. Lined them up and shot them in the back of the head 24/7 for months afterwards.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 17 2004, 06:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 17 2004, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Well, Saddam was backed and supported by the USA in the war against Iran. This was also when he gassed the Kurds, no one raised a fuss then about that. At the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi's were encouraged to revolt by the Bush Sr. admin with promised American aid, but when they did they recieved no help from Bush Sr. Saddam moved south, crushed that revolt, then moved North and eliminated the northern one...

Not only did the USA not give them the aid, but there were reports that they looked the other way and let Hussein use the 'no-fly zone' to fly.

Bush sr. believed that a stable Iraq under Hussein was preferable to a war ravaged, terrorist haven. [/b][/quote]
Nice revisionism. Totally false.

[transplant99]

No he was forced to stop making them. I have vague recollections of a war and during that war they bombed the holy snot out of everything. Then for the next 12 years they had some pretty harsh sanctions and bombs dropping and inspectors roaming around looking for more stuff.

Forced to stop making them? By who? The war lasted all of 3 months....then he was allowed free reign to start up whatever he wanted again.

he had ZERO inspections for 4 years between 98-02. What the hell did sanctions do to stop his WMD program exactly?

I think it's time to give up the ghost on this one Tranny. Everyone else has. I don't think they lied either but it's pretty obvious they were wrong.

Give up the ghost that he had WMD?? Why would I?. He did. We know that...and it is impossible to refute that.

Or everyone in the world EXCEPT Hussein was lying...thats where you are placing your faith in this argument. Sure you wanna keep that angle?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by HOZ@Sep 19 2004, 12:05 AM
Well, Saddam was backed and supported by the USA in the war against Iran.

Is that where he got all his T-72 tanks, MIG fighters and AK-47's? The OTHER super power supported him to a far greater degree. The invasion took everyone by surprise. Hardly a supervised American planned action by any means.


This was also when he gassed the Kurds, no one raised a fuss then about that.

Really? I remember a big fuss was made. But then why does the USA have to make a all the fuss all the time? What about our Euro-friends or our Canuck gov't? Where were they?


At the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi's were encouraged to revolt by the Bush Sr. admin with promised American aid, but when they did they recieved no help from Bush Sr. Saddam moved south, crushed that revolt, then moved North and eliminated the northern one...

You can probably read Swartzkoff's (sp?) somewhewre or Collin Powell's that they felt the biggest mistake the USA made was agreeing to allow the Iraqi's to fly their helicopters in the ceasefire agreement. Had they not the insurection would have likely succeeded in the South and North. No doubt the US left them hanging. But it was Hussein that killed them. Lined them up and shot them in the back of the head 24/7 for months afterwards.

a) Is this your explanation for this? 'Everyone else did it so it's okay?' More countries than the USA did support Iraq, but that doesn't make it okay in my opinion.

Anyways, Russia did in fact support Iraq. The USA supported Iran at around the same time. But in 82 they removed Iraq from a list of terrorist states and began supporting Saddam and Iraq in it's fight against Iran. ...top officials in the Reagan administration saw Saddam as a useful surrogate. By going to war with Iran, he could bleed the radical mullahs who had seized control of Iran from the pro-American shah. ( http://www.nobloodforoil.us/How%20Saddam%20Happened.htm ).

People act like the Iran-Iraq war was just that, a war between those two countries. But there were alot of other countries involved, including the USA. Even Saddam wanted out a few years after starting the war because the Iranian army (US supplied before the war) was not as depleted as he had suspected. But the war raged on anyways, because of outside factors.

b ) Again, does the fact that no one really made a fuss make it okay? Is your explanation the same as above, that no one else was doing it so it must be okay? And one reason the USA takes a little more flack than others in this matter is that they were big allies with Saddam at the time. This happened near the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam was their main foothold in the Middle East.

Plus, it would appear as though "[WMD] transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran." ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09...aq-ushelp_x.htm ).

c) Perhaps Schwarzkopf and Powell do indeed regret it. But the descision at the time was based on strategy.

“I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit—we would still be there,” wrote the American commander in Desert Storm, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, in his memoirs. America’s allies in the region, most prominently Saudi Arabia, feared that a post-Saddam Iraq would splinter and destabilize the region. The #####es in the south might bond with their fellow religionists in Iran, strengthening the #####e mullahs, and threatening the Saudi border. In the north, the Kurds were agitating to break off parts of Iraq and Turkey to create a Kurdistan. So Saddam was allowed to keep his tanks and helicopters—which he used to crush both #####e and Kurdish rebellions.

http://www.nobloodforoil.us/How%20Saddam%20Happened.htm

As I have said already, Saddam was an American foothold in Iraq. He kept Iraq stable, and thus, helped to keep the rest of the region stable. Allowing the rebellions to occur and eliminate Saddam might've de-stabalize the region, so giving Saddam the means to remain in power seemed like a strategic thing to do. It's easy to, after the fact, say that it was a mistake to allow Saddam to keep his tanks and aircraft, but I doubt taking them away was ever even considered for the reasons stated above.

Anyways, on a somewhat related note, Bush jr's endevour in Iraq nowadays is proving alot of these notions true: That Iraq would become unstable without Saddam and that America might be there for a very long time...

[RougeUnderoos]

Forced to stop making them? By who? The war lasted all of 3 months....then he was allowed free reign to start up whatever he wanted again.

Free reign? After the war was over everyone just packed up and went home, allowing him to do whatever he pleased? That's not how I remember it.

I don't know what the duration of the war has to do with it. Those hundreds of coalition planes dropping bombs on everything can do an awful lot of damage in 3 months.

he had ZERO inspections for 4 years between 98-02. What the hell did sanctions do to stop his WMD program exactly?

What did the sanctions do exactly? They, umm, stopped his WMD weapons program. How do I know this? Because there aren't any there.

Give up the ghost that he had WMD?? Why would I?. He did. We know that...and it is impossible to refute that.

Interesting twist. You are right, he did have WMD. When? A long time ago. Obviously not within the last two years, which was the argument for the war. I don't recall George or you saying "Saddam Hussein is a threat to the year 1991". George said he was "a gathering danger" and "a threat to the United States". He wasn't.

Or everyone in the world EXCEPT Hussein was lying...thats where you are placing your faith in this argument. Sure you wanna keep that angle?

Jeebus. Nice try.

I even said they (the US) weren't lying. They made a mistake. They even admitted "we made a mistake". The head of the CIA got fired for crying out loud. They've held hearings and called commissions and asked for changes and said "we were wrong".

But you still cling to the hope that they were right. You shouldn't.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Powell's take on the issue of WMD's in Iraq:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...q_usa_powell_dc

"I think it's unlikely that we will find any stockpiles," Powell told lawmakers when asked about the intelligence behind his Feb. 5, 2003, U.N. Security Council speech laying out U.S. arguments for the war with Iraq that began six weeks later.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by HOZ@Sep 19 2004, 06:09 AM
Nice revisionism. Totally false.

Well heck, with that evidence, I' convinced. HOZ says so is good enough for me.

No use in needing to actually explain why Bush Sr. didn't deliver the aid he promised and looked the other way.