Study: False statements preceded war

[resq39 0]

Hmm interesting thread.....so little compassion for the human race. Saddam needed his a$$ kicked along with the band of thugs called a government. He spewed the lies of what WMD's he had and gambled with an invasion....guess what he lost. Same for the Taliban they took it to the Russians and figured they could do as they pleased....they were taken out. Until recently our economy has flourished and I'm not sure who has missed those billions from their accounts. I don't regret for one second that we spent billions on top of billions of our taxes paving the way for hopefully a better life for them someday. I'm by no means well off and struggle as most do to make ends meet but sleep in a warm house every night and have more than the bare neccessities. Our homeless are better off than the average person in those two countries. I don't hate anyone and I guess I should try and mind my own business and block the world around me out.....but I can't so I'll force this terrible thinking of mine to whoever I can. After all ole uncle sam can't do anything to me I have rights! hmmm so do you, isn't this a great country! peace brother don't take life so serious...we live we die....do what you have a passion for and say what's on your mind but hate just takes up precious time.

[Dan J 277]

Hmm interesting thread.....so little compassion for the human race. Saddam needed his a$$ kicked along with the band of thugs called a government. He spewed the lies of what WMD's he had and gambled with an invasion....guess what he lost. Same for the Taliban they took it to the Russians and figured they could do as they pleased....they were taken out. Until recently our economy has flourished and I'm not sure who has missed those billions from their accounts. I don't regret for one second that we spent billions on top of billions of our taxes paving the way for hopefully a better life for them someday. I'm by no means well off and struggle as most do to make ends meet but sleep in a warm house every night and have more than the bare neccessities. Our homeless are better off than the average person in those two countries. I don't hate anyone and I guess I should try and mind my own business and block the world around me out.....but I can't so I'll force this terrible thinking of mine to whoever I can. After all ole uncle sam can't do anything to me I have rights! hmmm so do you, isn't this a great country! peace brother don't take life so serious...we live we die....do what you have a passion for and say what's on your mind but hate just takes up precious time.

Do you really have much compassion? We killed just as many people, if not more during our bombing campaigns in Iraq as Saddam did. Even more perished in the long drawn out fighting that followed.

There are alot of better ways to handle it, that would have resulted in far fewer deaths.

We haven't actually spent any of our tax money yet on the war. Its all money borrowed from central banks, mainly from China. Would you really support a tax increase to pay off the war?

[resq39 0]

Dan + Gemvita

Of course I have compassion for the human race.....why woud you think I didn't? Yes, I would pay much more to rid the world of suppressive governments. Do you have any experince dealing with world affairs or are you just angry at the Government. Not being a jerk just trying to see your point of view.

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course I have compassion for the human race.....why woud you think I didn't? Yes, I would pay much more to rid the world of suppressive governments. Do you have any experince dealing with world affairs or are you just angry at the Government./b] Not being a jerk just trying to see your point of view.

That's not really an either or question is it? Regardless, who here does have 'acredited' experience dealing with world affairs (at governmental level)? What difference does it make?

you make this crass comment:

Saddam needed his a$$ kicked along with the band of thugs

and expect anyone to take you seriously as an expert on world affairs? Geez.

[Dan J 277]

Dan + Gemvita

Of course I have compassion for the human race.....why woud you think I didn't? Yes, I would pay much more to rid the world of suppressive governments. Do you have any experince dealing with world affairs or are you just angry at the Government. Not being a jerk just trying to see your point of view.

Lets put it this way, if you consider a government that has killed a lot of innocent people as a goverment that has to go, then you can put Bush on that list. I don't see how somehow the innocent deaths caused by us in Iraq are somehow excusable.

And on top of that, where is your hawkishness for other trouble spots in the world, like Sudan? Where millions have died directly or indirectly due to the fighting there. What about China? Where people are killed for government dissent?

Edited January 27, 2008 by Dan + Gemvita

[HAL 9000 96]

True, Dan... Sudan is one particular topic these "Freedom Fighters" fail to see once again.

Also, the "Taliban" aka Muhajadeen were US allies against the Soviets back in the 80s, receiving really nice weapons from us in the process. So, whose rear end are we talking about now? Afghanistan and Iraq, to the best of my historical knowledge, were and are two different countries. But they do have one thing in common in recent world history... both had governments with suppresive views and horrible publicity at one point (Muhajadeen rebels turning into the Taliban removed by the US war and Saddam's government up til 1990) that enjoyed covert and not so covert US support along with whatever our elected officials deemed worthwhile US interests.

[Dan J 277]

(CNN) -- Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

According to a CBS report, Hussein claimed he didn't anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, agent George Piro said on "60 Minutes," scheduled for Sunday broadcast.

"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro.

During the nearly seven months Piro talked to Hussein, the agent hinted to the Iraqi that he answered directly to President Bush, CBS said in a posting on its Web site.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack," Piro said. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."

"He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" Correspondent Scott Pelley asked.

"No, not initially," Piro answered.

Don't Miss

* Former Hussein official's family stabbed to death

* POWs alleging Iraqi torture appeal to White House

* Iraq sends troops to battle with al Qaeda

* Iraq to host Iran leader

Once it was clear that an invasion was imminent, Hussein asked his generals to hold off the allied forces for two weeks, Piro said. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," the agent said, referring to the insurgency.

But Piro said he was not sure that the insurgency was indeed part of Hussein's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," he said.

Hussein had the ability to restart the weapons program and professed to wanting to do that, Piro said.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program."

Hussein said he was proud he eluded U.S. authorities who searched for him for nine months after the U.S.-led invasion, Piro said.

"What he wanted to really illustrate is ... how he was able to outsmart us," Piro said. "He told me he changed ... the way he traveled. He got rid of his normal vehicles. He got rid of the protective detail that he traveled with, really just to change his signature."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html

[HAL 9000 96]

Sucked for him...

Then again, Bush said he had proof the dude had WMDs. Then soldiers paid and continue paying the price. I love these attempts at continuing to absolve the Bush administration of any responsibility in leading the democratic world.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

So we should let dictators around the world have free reign? Even when they sign ceasefire agreements then do not live up to them. The first gulf war was never really ended, it was only a ceasefire. Which meant that we were required to enforce the agreement terms or look like complete fools and chumps.

Even when they have complete disregard to the voice of the world community and its many worthless resolutions that were never enforced by a feckless world body such as the United Nations. Well obviously from the posts here all this means nothing to you.

We should just let it slide, huh? Oh, go ahead Saddam, go ahead kill every stinking one of your people, we don't give a #######. Cut out their tongues and throw them off of buildings, cut off their limbs and rape their women. We are so wrapped up in our own pathetic little existences that we would prefer to keep our heads down and not ruffle any feathers around the world. For the sake of world harmony. This is not the kind of harmonious world the I care to live in.

Let to grow unchecked these are the conditions that create holocausts of the magnitude that we seen in WW2. We turned a blind eye then because of the same types of people and the same types of arguments that are being presented here. The result was 9 million Jews died for no reason. Should we let history repeat itself just because we don't care to know history or worse yet ignore the lessons of the past. Saddam's demise was well over due. We just had to get through 8 years of Bill Clinton's poll driven administration that did not want to hurt his approval rating, no matter what the cost to the nation. Consensus is the absence of leadership.

Oh and to equate the deaths of innocents that were killed in a tragic but yet noble cause of freedom. To the innocent people that were systematically raped, tortured and killed for some sick power mad dictators personal pleasure. Is absolutely irresponsible and seems a twisted type of thinking to me. These are not equal to each other. There would have been no other way to remove Saddam's foot from the throats of his people.

I do not excuse any of our previous dealings with Saddam either. But, all was not as apparent then as it is now, as we look back now with 20/20 hindsight.

I do know that with the world view that is being advocated here, it only leads to fertile soil in which the seeds of oppressive dictatorships will flourish and grow.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So we should let dictators around the world have free reign? Even when they sign ceasefire agreements then do not live up to them. The first gulf war was never really ended, it was only a ceasefire. Which meant that we were required to enforce the agreement terms or look like complete fools and chumps.

Even when they have complete disregard to the voice of the world community and its many worthless resolutions that were never enforced by a feckless world body such as the United Nations. Well obviously from the posts here all this means nothing to you.

We should just let it slide, huh? Oh, go ahead Saddam, go ahead kill every stinking one of your people, we don't give a #######. Cut out their tongues and throw them off of buildings, cut off their limbs and rape their women. We are so wrapped up in our own pathetic little existences that we would prefer to keep our heads down and not ruffle any feathers around the world. For the sake of world harmony. This is not the kind of harmonious world the I care to live in.

Let to grow unchecked these are the conditions that create holocausts of the magnitude that we seen in WW2. We turned a blind eye then because of the same types of people and the same types of arguments that are being presented here. The result was 9 million Jews died for no reason. Should we let history repeat itself just because we don't care to know history or worse yet ignore the lessons of the past. Saddam's demise was well over due. We just had to get through 8 years of Bill Clinton's poll driven administration that did not want to hurt his approval rating, no matter what the cost to the nation. Consensus is the absence of leadership.

Oh and to equate the deaths of innocents that were killed in a tragic but yet noble cause of freedom. To the innocent people that were systematically raped, tortured and killed for some sick power mad dictators personal pleasure. Is absolutely irresponsible and seems a twisted type of thinking to me. These are not equal to each other. There would have been no other way to remove Saddam's foot from the throats of his people.

I do not excuse any of our previous dealings with Saddam either. But, all was not as apparent then as it is now, as we look back now with 20/20 hindsight.

I do know that with the world view that is being advocated here, it only leads to fertile soil in which the seeds of oppressive dictatorships will flourish and grow.

Well we do, and we have.

What was your point again?

Trying to find a humanitarian angle to justify the war is all well and good, but it had absolutely no factual basis whatsoever in terms of the justifications that were presented to the public. The Bush administration fell back freeing oppressed peoples when every other ball they tried to play was debunked and proven inconvenient to the facts.

A war to liberate oppressed peoples would surely have had better forward thinking in terms of planning the reconstruction. We know that Bush et al had no such plan.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah I don't get it either. Somehow questioning our lies is synonymous with letting bad guys off the hook.

I think this is a common problem with the more fanatical crowd that rather reacts before thinking some things through.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Sucked for him...

Then again, Bush said he had proof the dude had WMDs. Then soldiers paid and continue paying the price. I love these attempts at continuing to absolve the Bush administration of any responsibility in leading the democratic world.

This WMD argument was a small part of the whole case for war. It did not come into play until the very end of the debate.

The real case was:

* Failing to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

* Failing to comply with the 17 UN resolutions.

* Failing to comply with proper documentation of weapons declarations and destruction.

All this precedes the current Bush administration by many years.

The focus on the WMD argument is because the left loses all the other arguments in regard to the war so they repeat this one ad infinitum.

The left prefers to see the defeat of their own country while at war, for the political gain they would receive in pinning the blame on the President. I was never a big fan of President Clinton. But I would rather die then undermine my own country in a time of war. No matter who is President. The stakes are too high to be this irresponsible.

[Dan J 277]

Sucked for him...

Then again, Bush said he had proof the dude had WMDs. Then soldiers paid and continue paying the price. I love these attempts at continuing to absolve the Bush administration of any responsibility in leading the democratic world.

This WMD argument was a small part of the whole case for war. It did not come into play until the very end of the debate.

The real case was:

* Failing to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

* Failing to comply with the 17 UN resolutions.

* Failing to comply with proper documentation of weapons declarations and destruction.

All this precedes the current Bush administration by many years.

The focus on the WMD argument is because the left loses all the other arguments in regard to the war so they repeat this one ad infinitum.

The left prefers to see the defeat of their own country while at war, for the political gain they would receive in pinning the blame on the President. I was never a big fan of President Clinton. But I would rather die then undermine my own country in a time of war. No matter who is President. The stakes are too high to be this irresponsible.

That to me, is not a case for, especially not on our own.

Have we attacked every country who didn't follow a UN resolution? Or didn't comply with a ceasefire agreement (I'm pretty sure Israel is on that list)?

I don't even think those reasons are strong enough for most Americans to support a war, much less a first strike. The reasons which the people did support, were either false or misleading.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sucked for him...

Then again, Bush said he had proof the dude had WMDs. Then soldiers paid and continue paying the price. I love these attempts at continuing to absolve the Bush administration of any responsibility in leading the democratic world.

This WMD argument was a small part of the whole case for war. It did not come into play until the very end of the debate.

The real case was:

* Failing to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

* Failing to comply with the 17 UN resolutions.

* Failing to comply with proper documentation of weapons declarations and destruction.

All this precedes the current Bush administration by many years.

The focus on the WMD argument is because the left loses all the other arguments in regard to the war so they repeat this one ad infinitum.

The left prefers to see the defeat of their own country while at war, for the political gain they would receive in pinning the blame on the President. I was never a big fan of President Clinton. But I would rather die then undermine my own country in a time of war. No matter who is President. The stakes are too high to be this irresponsible.

Bush specifically framed the debate in terms of Weapons of Mass Destruction and links to 9/11. It was a core part of his administration's justification for Congress to pass the joint resolution for war, and indeed - prior to that - when Colin Powell conducted that Intelligence briefing at the UN security Council.

In short, they needed the WMD angle because the failure to comply with previous UN resolutions wasn't enough, in itself, to declare war; and certainly not for Bushco to convince the allies in Europe that going rushing to war was a necessary step.

In context of course - it scarcely needs to be pointed out that the country with the highest number of unfulfilled UN resolutions was not Iraq, but Israel. And we aren't going to war with them anytime soon.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah I think someone missed the 2003 State of the Union Speech... lol