May 1, 2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Charlesandnessa - Why do you feel this need to educate us as to Saddam's brutality? Noone disputes the sort of man this is or how he ruled his country.

Yet you keep throwing it out there as if it justifies military action in and of itself. It doesn't.

The fact is there are many dictators out there, a lot of whom are far worse than Saddam ever was. I'm rather tired of having this issue boiled down to some sort of moral crusade against the evils of the world. If we were really so concerned about this why is it we are still selling arms to dictators in Africa and South America? Our morality is somewhat selective when it comes to which causes we support with regards to preventing terrorism and ensuring national security.

now if he used chemical weapons on his own people, what really prevents him from using such on anyone else?

Ummm because we sold them to him in the first place? The US engineered the Iran-Iraq war - bankrolled Saddam and supported him by selling him massive quantities of weapons (including those pesky chemical / biological agents). For God's sake - there's even photos of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands on the deal! What more do you need!?

The simple fact is that in 2003 Saddam was contained and militarily crippled, as unsatisfactory as that is for people who see this as about liberating the population from a brutal tyrant. That was NOT what the war was sold on! The war was sold on Saddams possession of WMD and his expansion of those weapons to ensure delivery to targets in Israel, the US and Europe.

Such proof has not been forthcoming, and that that was put forward was exaggerated or simply untrue. In the face of 'prevailing' world opinion you would think there would be some strong evidence. THERE WAS NONE except what the Bush administration fabricated and gave to Congress. As complicit as other politicians are in this matter, they were given false information to secure their support for military action.

Make no bones about it - the buck for this ENTIRE mess stops with Bushco. THEY had the pre-emptive plan, THEY didn't want to wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work, THEY made the false claims that Iraq had the capability to deploy WMD on American and European soil.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

Charlesandnessa - Why do you feel this need to educate us as to Saddam's brutality? Noone disputes the sort of man this is or how he ruled his country.

it sure seems that many discount that. and as far as i'm concerned, it justifies removing him.

and while you are busy blaming the usa for arming him...look to germany and france too.

Edited May 1, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Charlesandnessa - Why do you feel this need to educate us as to Saddam's brutality? Noone disputes the sort of man this is or how he ruled his country.

it sure seems that many discount that. and as far as i'm concerned, it justifies removing him.

and while you are busy blaming the usa for arming him...look to germany and france too

But Bush didn't sell it on that basis. If he had the question might have been asked somewhere - What is going on in Iraq that isn't going on on a much bigger scale in say, Darfur?

In the end it comes back to WMD, which apparently there was so much proof for, that the administration had to exaggerate the evidence or simply make it up!

In any case I never said that the US was alone in arming Saddam.

You're talking to someone who comes from a country which has its own long list of imperialist crimes against other countries. Lets not pretend the US is any different.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

Charlesandnessa - Why do you feel this need to educate us as to Saddam's brutality? Noone disputes the sort of man this is or how he ruled his country.

it sure seems that many discount that. and as far as i'm concerned, it justifies removing him.

and while you are busy blaming the usa for arming him...look to germany and france too

But Bush didn't sell it on that basis. If he had the question might have been asked somewhere - What is going on in Iraq that isn't going on on a much bigger scale in say, Darfur?

In the end it comes back to WMD, which apparently there was so much proof for, that the administration had to exaggerate the evidence or simply make it up!

In any case I never said that the US was alone in arming Saddam.

You're talking to someone who comes from a country which has its own long list of imperialist crimes against other countries. Lets not pretend the US is any different.

i suppose it depends on your definition of what a wmd is. do you not count chemical and biological weapons as such?

and you're talking to a retired member of the us military, who's spent about 1 year in iraq (first gulf war and operation provide comfort/operation northern watch).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Charlesandnessa - Why do you feel this need to educate us as to Saddam's brutality? Noone disputes the sort of man this is or how he ruled his country.

it sure seems that many discount that. and as far as i'm concerned, it justifies removing him.

and while you are busy blaming the usa for arming him...look to germany and france too

But Bush didn't sell it on that basis. If he had the question might have been asked somewhere - What is going on in Iraq that isn't going on on a much bigger scale in say, Darfur?

In the end it comes back to WMD, which apparently there was so much proof for, that the administration had to exaggerate the evidence or simply make it up!

In any case I never said that the US was alone in arming Saddam.

You're talking to someone who comes from a country which has its own long list of imperialist crimes against other countries. Lets not pretend the US is any different.

i suppose it depends on your definition of what a wmd is. do you not count chemical and biological weapons as such?

Ummm what did you think I was talking about?

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

Charlesandnessa - Why do you feel this need to educate us as to Saddam's brutality? Noone disputes the sort of man this is or how he ruled his country.

it sure seems that many discount that. and as far as i'm concerned, it justifies removing him.

and while you are busy blaming the usa for arming him...look to germany and france too

But Bush didn't sell it on that basis. If he had the question might have been asked somewhere - What is going on in Iraq that isn't going on on a much bigger scale in say, Darfur?

In the end it comes back to WMD, which apparently there was so much proof for, that the administration had to exaggerate the evidence or simply make it up!

In any case I never said that the US was alone in arming Saddam.

You're talking to someone who comes from a country which has its own long list of imperialist crimes against other countries. Lets not pretend the US is any different.

i suppose it depends on your definition of what a wmd is. do you not count chemical and biological weapons as such?

Ummm what did you think I was talking about?

i count chemical and bio weapons as wmd's. some tend to think only nukes are. but toss out a persistent chemical agent and decide if it's a wmd

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Charlesandnessa - Why do you feel this need to educate us as to Saddam's brutality? Noone disputes the sort of man this is or how he ruled his country.

it sure seems that many discount that. and as far as i'm concerned, it justifies removing him.

and while you are busy blaming the usa for arming him...look to germany and france too

But Bush didn't sell it on that basis. If he had the question might have been asked somewhere - What is going on in Iraq that isn't going on on a much bigger scale in say, Darfur?

In the end it comes back to WMD, which apparently there was so much proof for, that the administration had to exaggerate the evidence or simply make it up!

In any case I never said that the US was alone in arming Saddam.

You're talking to someone who comes from a country which has its own long list of imperialist crimes against other countries. Lets not pretend the US is any different.

i suppose it depends on your definition of what a wmd is. do you not count chemical and biological weapons as such?

Ummm what did you think I was talking about?

i count chemical and bio weapons as wmd's. some tend to think only nukes are. but toss out a persistent chemical agent and decide if it's a wmd

As I said there's been no demonstrable proof of any significant stockpiles of those agents or any delivery mechanisms that would suggest an expanding weapons programme.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

[

As I said there's been no demonstrable proof of any significant stockpiles of those agents or any delivery mechanisms that would suggest an expanding weapons programme.

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the facts are:

Iraq agreed to sanctions

They broke them

All the leading politicians and world leaders were united in thought that Iraq had WMDs...even PRE Bush!

US official policy towards Iraq changed to 'regime change' during Clinton era

Congress gave Bush the power to go to war

...and no amount of Monday morning quarterbacking is going to change any of it!

Nicely selective in our "fact" presentation, aren't we?

See, any way you slice it, there's one man who gave the marching orders against the collective will and wisdom of almost the entire world.

Edited May 1, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

of course i don't suppose that such could have been hidden either. not that saddam would ever do that. he just brewed those chemical agents in his bathtub for a onetime deal.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

of course i don't suppose that such could have been hidden either. not that saddam would ever do that. he just brewed those chemical agents in his bathtub for a onetime deal.

He might also have been lying, as a way of staving off an uprising. After all, Saddams military was significantly weaker in 2003 than it was in 1991.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

of course i don't suppose that such could have been hidden either. not that saddam would ever do that. he just brewed those chemical agents in his bathtub for a onetime deal.

He might also have been lying, as a way of staving off an uprising. After all, Saddams military was significantly weaker in 2003 than it was in 1991.

i find it hard to believe that he would have the capability to make such and then not have the capability to use such later on. chemical weapons are often called the poor man's atomic bomb. it takes a bit of money to assemble and staff such a project. i seriously doubt he decided unilaterally to dismantle it.

as for his military being weaker, yes and no. the units most loyal to him survived most of the war of 91 intact. the rest that was destroyed was just cannon fodder. not that he cared much about those lost.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

of course i don't suppose that such could have been hidden either. not that saddam would ever do that. he just brewed those chemical agents in his bathtub for a onetime deal.

He might also have been lying, as a way of staving off an uprising. After all, Saddams military was significantly weaker in 2003 than it was in 1991.

i find it hard to believe that he would have the capability to make such and then not have the capability to use such later on. chemical weapons are often called the poor man's atomic bomb. it takes a bit of money to assemble and staff such a project. i seriously doubt he decided unilaterally to dismantle it.

as for his military being weaker, yes and no. the units most loyal to him survived most of the war of 91 intact. the rest that was destroyed was just cannon fodder. not that he cared much about those lost.

Well to put it another way. If the Bush adminstration had proved conclusive proof to the American public and the world at large that Saddam represented a clear and present danger to the US and its allies (both in and outside the middle-east region) there wouldn't

As it is, they chose to exaggerate or claim as fact what they knew to be dubious. That creates suspicion - that suspicion has not be allayed by the finding of any evidence to back up their initial claims.

For my part I (and a large proportion of brits was NEVER convinced that Saddam represented a threat). As I said before, our elected representatives clearly failed us by supporting a policy that the general public clearly weren't 100% behind.

[Artegal 1]

Finally I have waited all day for the news media to report this story, and finally here at the 11th hour one of my local newscast reports this story.