NationStates Jolt Archive


Did Saddam Hussein directly threaten to bomb the US?

VietnamSounds
08-04-2008, 04:28
A communist asked me to prove that Saddam Hussein threatened to attack before we went to war with him. I thought it was a given, and when I tried to find proof that he threatened us I couldn't find any.

Please note, this isn't about whether he had WMD or not. It's about whether he made it clear he wanted to kill us.
Veblenia
08-04-2008, 04:38
Even in 1990, Iraq never had the capability to attack the US directly. WMD or no, they had no means of projecting power halfway around the world. To my knowledge, Saddam never explicitly threatened to attack the US and if he had, it would mean about as much as me threatening to blow up the moon.
Barringtonia
08-04-2008, 04:44
There's a bunch of quotes here (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm), mostly it's rhetoric I suppose but it's not exactly friendly.

"We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."
Saddam Hussein, Baghdad Radio, February 8, 1991

"What remains for Bush and his accomplices in crime is to understand that they are personally responsible for their crime. The Iraqi people will pursue them for this crime, even if they leave office and disappear into oblivion. There is no doubt they will understand what we mean if they know what revenge means to the Arabs."
Baghdad Radio, February 6, 1991 (State-controlled)

"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)

"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

Actually, when you read them, you see parallels with statements of other aggressive leaders:

"[Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti] blood will light torches, grow aromatic plants, and water the tree of freedom, resistance and victory."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, January 26, 1999
South Lorenya
08-04-2008, 09:41
Clearly, Saddam planned to hurl copies of Superman 64 and Shaq-Fu at major US cities with a giant catapult. If that's not a reason to invade iraq, what is!?
Laerod
08-04-2008, 09:42
A communist asked me to prove that Saddam Hussein threatened to attack before we went to war with him. I thought it was a given, and when I tried to find proof that he threatened us I couldn't find any.

Please note, this isn't about whether he had WMD or not. It's about whether he made it clear he wanted to kill us.
Welcome to reality.
Cameroi
08-04-2008, 09:51
i don't see how any of that unfriendly retoric was either uncalled for nor unprovoked.

to take it out of context is to ignore the reality of the situation he was facing.

i'm not trying to make him out to be any kind of a hero either. but he did keep iraq togather and more or less civilized, and in the face of an america that on the one hand would build him palaces, but not schools on the other, and that above all, wanted to screw him, and leaders of resource nations everywhere, on what their countries and their populations got in return for the rip off of what they had to trade and negotiate with.

he did a bunch of naughty stuff certainly. the only thing is, bush did tens, even hundreds of times as much of the same things, just to get and kill him. and with him gone, is still doing so.

=^^=
.../\...
Redwulf
08-04-2008, 10:11
A communist asked me to prove that Saddam Hussein threatened to attack before we went to war with him. I thought it was a given, and when I tried to find proof that he threatened us I couldn't find any.

That's incredibly silly of you. Why would you think that?
Andaluciae
08-04-2008, 14:27
That's incredibly silly of you. Why would you think that?

Given Barringtonia's quotes, it would seem pretty clear why VS thought that.
Ashmoria
08-04-2008, 14:31
A communist asked me to prove that Saddam Hussein threatened to attack before we went to war with him. I thought it was a given, and when I tried to find proof that he threatened us I couldn't find any.

Please note, this isn't about whether he had WMD or not. It's about whether he made it clear he wanted to kill us.

oh you poor thing. no he didnt start this war in any way shape or form.

we invaded a country that was no threat to us and had never done anything to us.
Andaluciae
08-04-2008, 14:34
ut he did keep iraq...more or less civilized,

What on Earth are you smoking?

and in the face of an america that on the one hand would build him palaces, but not schools on the other, and that above all

Actually, the list of countries that provided him with more money and weapons than the United States is quite long and extensive, and includes such titanic weapons exporters as Brazil and Egypt. More than that, it was Mr. Hussein who was diverting government and oil funds to his own purposes of his own free will, not on the command of the United States, or any other foreign power for that matter.

The United States is not the root of all evil, or bad governmental behavior, in the world.

=^^=
.../\...


What on Earth is this anyways? You don't need to manually add it to every post. That's what your signature is for, and given that it is already in your signature, it's just redundant.
Andaluciae
08-04-2008, 14:37
oh you poor thing. no he didnt start this war in any way shape or form.

we invaded a country that was no threat to us and had never done anything to us.

Vietnam Sounds is not saying that there is a justification in what the United States has done in Iraq since 2003, or whether there was actually any realistic threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the United States, but, whether he had exhibited a significant degree of violent antipathy towards the United States, roughly along the lines of a that disgruntled loner in middle school claiming he wanted to kill all the jocks, but not having any idea how to do it.
Ashmoria
08-04-2008, 14:39
Vietnam Sounds is not saying that there is a justification in what the United States has done in Iraq since 2003, or whether there was actually any realistic threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the United States, but, whether he had exhibited a significant degree of violent antipathy towards the United States, roughly along the lines of a that disgruntled loner in middle school claiming he wanted to kill all the jocks, but not having any idea how to do it.

yes but he didnt.
Andaluciae
08-04-2008, 14:40
yes but he didnt.

Did you totally skip what Barringtonia posted?
Ashmoria
08-04-2008, 14:55
Did you totally skip what Barringtonia posted?

i dont count anything before ....2001. that would be like invading japan today because of pearl harbor. him reacting to being bombed doesnt really represent a threat so much as defiance.
Andaluciae
08-04-2008, 15:02
i dont count anything before ....2001. that would be like invading japan today because of pearl harbor. him reacting to being bombed doesnt really represent a threat so much as defiance.

I'm not saying that any of those warranted the United States invading Iraq in 2003, only that Saddam Hussein has, indeed, gone on record as having expressed hostile intent towards the United States, even if he totally lacked the ability to act on that hostile intent. Further, given that the actions were carried out by a United Nations regime levied against his government, it would seem that he had a particularly distinct hatred for the US.

Even at that, the Japan different is irrelevant, given that the government of Japan is one that is totally different from the one that ordered the attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor.
Laerod
08-04-2008, 15:06
I'm not saying that any of those warranted the United States invading Iraq in 2003, only that Saddam Hussein has, indeed, gone on record as having expressed hostile intent towards the United States, even if he totally lacked the ability to act on that hostile intent. Further, given that the actions were carried out by a United Nations regime levied against his government, it would seem that he had a particularly distinct hatred for the US.

Even at that, the Japan different is irrelevant, given that the government of Japan is one that is totally different from the one that ordered the attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor.
It's also interesting to note that none of them are direct threats against the US. So what is your point?
Andaluciae
08-04-2008, 15:10
It's also interesting to note that none of them are direct threats against the US. So what is your point?

A threat does not need to be direct to remain a threat. Inference is enough.
Laerod
08-04-2008, 15:15
A threat does not need to be direct to remain a threat. Inference is enough.Not in this thread. I suggest you read the title again, perhaps even the OP.
Rambhutan
08-04-2008, 15:17
A threat does not need to be direct to remain a threat. Inference is enough.

How about Reagan's "bombing starts in five minutes" quote - was that a direct threat to Russia?
Mott Haven
08-04-2008, 15:18
oh you poor thing. no he didnt start this war in any way shape or form.

we invaded a country that was no threat to us and had never done anything to us.

Actually he did start the war. That's history. Saddam rejected the ceasefire terms, thereby putting his nation at war.

And this nation is so soft that 19 guys with knives can be a threat, and kill thousands. Think of the carnage a few could cause in Southern California, with barbecue starters. There is a huge list of easy targets, and Saddam had already announced his intention to attack- post 911, there is no "mere rhetoric", threats have consequences. And it's well known that Saddam was hip deep in terror support, he wrote checks for Hamas! So the danger was real. It's a miracle, considering American weakness and the scope and utter depravity of the threat, that basically nothing has gotten through our firewall since 2001. (and it must be pissing off a LOT of people!)

Other issues were the Marsh Arabs- a whole ethnic culture facing genocide from Saddam and his allies, and only very barely saved. (classic Hollywood, we arrived just in time, a few more years, the entire Marsh Arab culture would have been as lost as the Carthaginians.)

Human Rights Watch has the story of Saddam's campaign to eradicate them (HRW uses the word "eradicate", it's a bad thing) here:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm

Can you just for a moment imagine what it must be like to live in a culture that is not being oppressed, not being persecuted, but being ERADICATED?

Doesn't it chill you to the bone that a guy like Saddam actually has apologists? Dude... Eradication.... whoa...
Algorith
08-04-2008, 15:21
Did you totally skip what Barringtonia posted?
You hear worse from other countries every day! If those statements are considered being anwhere near a justification for starting a war then we're in for WW III soon.
Anyway I seem to remember that the pre-war threats coming from the US were far more explicit. I would have summarized them as:
Openly admit you have WMDs, and hand them over. And better do it quick or we will invade your country, remove the current government by force and install one that will cooperate!
I haven't heard Saddam statements towards the US yet that would come near to the level of open threat and aggression exhibited by US representatives prior to the invasion of Iraq. I believe there is little doubt as to which country is responsible for starting the war. Iraq obviously wasn't a threat to the US when the war was started and it's obvious that the US government knew that.
They probably feared that Iraq might eventually become a political and economical threat to the US. So it was kind of a preemptive strike.

Disbelievers may want to check http://www.newamericancentury.org/ to understand the ideology behind it.
Fishutopia
08-04-2008, 15:35
Can you just for a moment imagine what it must be like to live in a culture that is not being oppressed, not being persecuted, but being ERADICATED?
I can't. I could try to open my mind a bit by asking some people though. Such as the American Indians, the palestinians, the Hmong (if I could find any).

Doesn't it chill you to the bone that a guy like Saddam actually has apologists? Dude... Eradication.... whoa...
It chills me that people are so blinded, that they see people questioning the assault on Iraq as being Saddam apologists. Is Iraq better fro Saddam not being there. For a few people yes. For most, no. If you can't make it better, than not making it worse is acceptable.

Read paragraph 20 - 23 of this
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/iran-iraq-war.html
It was just like a movie, too. But it was the 1st part of a Hollywood blockbuster, where the villain has to be shown to be nasty. The friend of the hero is shown to be a turncoat. He shows a pure nice face to the world, but his hear it is pure selfishness and greed. He helps the villain gas poor innocent people.
Laerod
08-04-2008, 15:48
Disbelievers may want to check http://www.newamericancentury.org/ to understand the ideology behind it.

Hohoho! That place is comedic gold! :D

[...lots of people advising against war...]
But these fears for the war on terrorism are unfounded. A war against Iraq will reinforce, not weaken, whatever collective spirit has developed among intelligence and security agencies working against Islamic radicals.Source. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-101502.pdf)
Mott Haven
08-04-2008, 16:04
I can't. I could try to open my mind a bit by asking some people though. Such as the American Indians, the palestinians, the Hmong (if I could find any).

Native Americans, yes, their societies were bascially overrun and destroyed. That's one reason we Americans understand and recognize a clash of civilizations when we see one- we've seen it before, cause we did it. It takes a thief, like they say. Palestinians, no- they are the ones who want to do the eradication. In the wake of the creation of Israel and the Arab genocidal reaction, some Arabs were evicted (not eradicated) from Israel, some Jews were evicted from Arab nations, pretty even trade, and then the Palestinians embarked on a cultural murder-fest that treats attempted genocide as a heroic ideal.

Hmong were hit pretty hard by the Vietnamese communists, but if you can't find any you're just not trying. Look in Wisconsin, or New York.

Iraq is better today for the majority- the majority was being cruelly abused to keep the minority in power, in prosperity, and in goods and services. Now, the majority runs the place. They like it that way. They'd be much better off, but remnants of the old minority power keep messing things up. Not us, them, and the Iraqis know this. We do make things better, but Saddam's old crowd plus AQI plus assorted other nitwits make it worse again. You have to be real nasty piece of work to bomb a school in your own country, then claim things were better when you were in charge because the schools weren't being bombed. It's gangster mentality. It's worse, it's a "if I can't have it all, no one get's to have anything" mentality.

And now Iraqis are the first Arabs who have a genuine gut hatred for suicide bombers.
Anikdote
08-04-2008, 16:10
A maniac dictator defies sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

Ignored or circumvented UN economic sanctions.

The point is, why have rules if you there is no consequence to breaking them. A reckless genocidal dictator is a flare for anti-American rhetoric, sounds like a good target to me.
Barringtonia
08-04-2008, 16:12
i dont count anything before ....2001. that would be like invading japan today because of pearl harbor. him reacting to being bombed doesnt really represent a threat so much as defiance.

Not that I was making any statement on the legitimacy of the war, merely responding to VS's question but I did provide a link, and only provided a sample from that link but...

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

Your point remains, that perhaps it was in defiance but there is no doubt whatsoever that Saddamn Hussein was hostile to the US, perhaps not prior to the first Iraq war but by the by...

There was a simple question, a simple answer, it doesn't really impact on the question of whether the war was just.
Muravyets
08-04-2008, 16:32
All arguments that Saddam started the Iraq war are bullshit for the following reasons:

1) Saddam never made any public threats against the US until AFTER Bush started moving US armed forces into the area around Iraq. For a while, even as Bush was already issuing demands and threats to Iraq, Saddam kept his mouth shut. It was not until US forces were mobilized that he started returning the threats. So to repeat -- not one threatening word out of Saddam until AFTER Bush's threats became serious. So Bush started it, not Saddam.

2) Not one of Saddam's threats actually threatens to initiate war against the US. On the contrary, they are all threats of revenge, which presupposes that the US would be the one to shoot first and start the war. Those were Saddam's version of "Don't Tread On Me" speeches, saying what Iraqis would do if the US attacked them. So once, again, Saddam did not start anything. Bush started it.

3) Not one of Saddam's threats is actually militaristic. Not one brags about weaponry or destructive capabilities. Saddam was a bastard, but he was not crazy. He clearly knew what everyone else in the world also knew -- that he had no military capacity to attack another nation. So he made vague threats about the Iraqi people never giving up in their search for revenge IF anyone attacked them. Vague promises of perseverence were all he had to throw at anyone. As it happens, it turned out the Iraqis were able to make good on those promises, eh?

4) Mere words are not enough to justify initiating a war. You have to have some reason to believe that an actual, physical attack against you is imminent. It has been proven time and time again that ALL of the "evidence" of WMDs that the Bush admin trotted out to justify attacking Iraq was FALSE and was known to be false at the time. So even if Saddam had actually said "We will bomb you, starting tomorrow" (which he never did), it still would not justify attacking him if there really are no weapons pointed at you. Bush's doctrine of "pre-emption" is nothing but a fancy label for attacking someone just because you don't like them -- neither justified nor justifiable. And if actual, real threats don't justify a pre-emptive strike unless the ability to carry them out really exists, then I assure you, a person promising to take revenge if you attack them is not a justification for you to attack them.
Yootopia
08-04-2008, 17:09
A threat does not need to be direct to remain a threat. Inference is enough.
Aye, but this was a pretty lame threat, let's be honest.
Bitchkitten
08-04-2008, 17:10
Such silliness. Watch Fox much?
VietnamSounds
08-04-2008, 17:20
No, I don't watch fox, that's a pretty low blow.

When the war started, I was 13 or 14. I wasn't paying close attention. I formed assumptions during that time that I have never tested since then. Whenever a debate about the war breaks out, people usually resort to name calling or "agree to disagree." So I the idea that Saddam might not have ever been a serious threat didn't occur to me.

I knew he tried to commit genocide and did some other nasty stuff, but that doesn't have to do with the safety of the United States. I knew he tried to assassinate the older Bush, but that was during a war. I know he refused to let weapons inspectors in, which can be interpreted as a threat, but not a direct threat.
Andaluciae
08-04-2008, 18:08
How about Reagan's "bombing starts in five minutes" quote - was that a direct threat to Russia?

That was, literally, a joke, meant with no ill intent. Something to make his audience laugh.

As Reagan's diaries indicated, he hated the concept of nuclear warfare, and would be one of the last people to initiate an offensive nuclear strike.
Andaluciae
08-04-2008, 18:10
Aye, but this was a pretty lame threat, let's be honest.

You have my full agreement. It was not a threat worth responding to in the way our countries did, but he did proffer forth the language of violence.
Khadgar
08-04-2008, 18:13
A communist asked me to prove that Saddam Hussein threatened to attack before we went to war with him. I thought it was a given, and when I tried to find proof that he threatened us I couldn't find any.

Please note, this isn't about whether he had WMD or not. It's about whether he made it clear he wanted to kill us.

Guessing you're a Fox News watcher. Welcome to the world they didn't want you to see.
UNIverseVERSE
08-04-2008, 18:14
<snip>
And this nation is so soft that 19 guys with knives can be a threat, and kill thousands. Think of the carnage a few could cause in Southern California, with barbecue starters. There is a huge list of easy targets, and Saddam had already announced his intention to attack- post 911, there is no "mere rhetoric", threats have consequences. And it's well known that Saddam was hip deep in terror support, he wrote checks for Hamas! So the danger was real. It's a miracle, considering American weakness and the scope and utter depravity of the threat, that basically nothing has gotten through our firewall since 2001. (and it must be pissing off a LOT of people!)
<snip>

Look, there is no serious terror threat to the USA. None, zip, nada. Reason? Because any half-intelligent person could come up with a dozen ways of carrying out terror attacks, all of which would easily get past the current regulations.

For example: .50 sniper rifle through the engine of a commercial airliner that's taking off. Concrete blocks on railways. Bacterium of your choice in the water supply. Crash a tanker carrying petrol into a highway overpass. Two tankers, blow one up at each end of a tunnel.

There's five, in three minutes thinking. I could carry out any of those with a few thousand bucks and a couple accomplices (or less, in some cases). Each of these has the potential to kill up to a few hundred, and leave the rest of the country in a panic. For even more points, one targets more iconic landmarks, but those are just absolutely simple ideas.

Now, if it's that quick and easy to come up with ideas, and that cheap and simple to implement them, howcome people aren't dying all over the country to terrorism? There are but two possible answers: either an incredibly effective security service, or that there isn't a major threat. We can rapidly discard the possibility of an effective security service. Many of these would easily avoid what precautions are in place, and the fact that most recent changes are simply security theatre is just the icing on the cake. So it must be that there isn't a real threat.

Care to point out the mistake you must think I've made?
Die ReichTotenkopf
08-04-2008, 18:26
I'm not saying that any of those warranted the United States invading Iraq in 2003, only that Saddam Hussein has, indeed, gone on record as having expressed hostile intent towards the United States, even if he totally lacked the ability to act on that hostile intent. Further, given that the actions were carried out by a United Nations regime levied against his government, it would seem that he had a particularly distinct hatred for the US.

Even at that, the Japan different is irrelevant, given that the government of Japan is one that is totally different from the one that ordered the attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor.

:upyours: The US is like a spoiled bully. When WW2 broke out you refused to come fight, why? Because there isn't any oil in Germany/ France I guess but Japan bloodies your nose at Pearl Harbour and ,justifiably, you were mad but instead of a fair fight you used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTUCTION in a revengfull manor to almost enillate the little island. Saddam Hussein taunts you and you practically burn/bomb that country to the ground. Oh but wait it was because of 9/11 which was a terrific to be sure but no reason to invaid Iraq you somehow confused BinLaden with Hssein. And one final thought , and I hope I'm wrong but towers will burn in your country as long as you run around the world acting like jackasses!
Cypresaria
08-04-2008, 18:28
Heres why the US and allies were justified in what they did.

In Feb 1991 Iraq signed a ceasefire deal with the UN forces after the liberation of Kuwait

In that deal, Iraq agreed to the inspection and destruction of its nuclear weapons program, its chemical weapons program and its biological weapons program.

Given previous behaviour between 1991 and 2003, eg telling the UN weapons inspectors "We have no uranium certifuges at this site" while shipping them out the backdoor while the UN waited at the front door, the various governments did'nt exactly trust Saddam.

The other problem was that Saddam used the issue (along with sanctions) in order to gain support for his regime.

Then you get inteligence reports that yes saddam still had stocks of wmd in breach of the 1991 ceasefire agreement

Invade or do not invade? ( no using information gained post invasion for this decision)
Khadgar
08-04-2008, 18:29
:upyours: The US is like a spoiled bully. When WW2 broke out you refused to come fight, why? Because there isn't any oil in Germany/ France I guess but Japan bloodies your nose at Pearl Harbour and ,justifiably, you were mad but instead of a fair fight you used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTUCTION in a revengfull manor to almost enillate the little island. Saddam Hussein taunts you and you practically burn/bomb that country to the ground. Oh but wait it was because of 9/11 which was a terrific to be sure but no reason to invaid Iraq you somehow confused BinLaden with Hssein. And one final thought , and I hope I'm wrong but towers will burn in your country as long as you run around the world acting like jackasses!

You're cute. Not real bright, but cute. Given a spell checker, paragraphs, and a history book you might be interesting. Come back once you've found these things.
Muravyets
09-04-2008, 03:54
Heres why the US and allies were justified in what they did.

In Feb 1991 Iraq signed a ceasefire deal with the UN forces after the liberation of Kuwait

In that deal, Iraq agreed to the inspection and destruction of its nuclear weapons program, its chemical weapons program and its biological weapons program.
Which happened. Prior UN inspections had reported as much during the 1990's.

Given previous behaviour between 1991 and 2003, eg telling the UN weapons inspectors "We have no uranium certifuges at this site" while shipping them out the backdoor while the UN waited at the front door, the various governments did'nt exactly trust Saddam.
Untrustworthiness = direct, imminent threat to other nations ... how, exactly?

The other problem was that Saddam used the issue (along with sanctions) in order to gain support for his regime.
So now, if a national leader uses his circumstances for political purposes, that gives a green light to other nations to attack, invade, depose him and occupy his nation?

Then you get inteligence reports that yes saddam still had stocks of wmd in breach of the 1991 ceasefire agreement
Reports that were tagged as highly questionable or outright unreliable by intelligence agents in the Pentagon, CIA, and other nations' intelligence organizations at and even before the time Bush & Co used them to gin up the war.

Invade or do not invade? ( no using information gained post invasion for this decision)
Do not invade. Initiating acts of war is never justified UNLESS there is an imminent and direct threat to one's own nation and/or to a nation with which you have a defense treaty and who asks for your help (i.e. Kuwait). As there was NO threat to the US, and no US defense ally asking for help, there was NO justification for the invasion. None of the questionable items in your list, above, constitutes anything that could legitimately be used to justify the US's attack against Iraq.
Magdha
09-04-2008, 03:56
Clearly, Saddam planned to hurl copies of Superman 64 and Shaq-Fu at major US cities with a giant catapult. If that's not a reason to invade iraq, what is!?

Now that would definitely constitute crimes against humanity. :p
Andaluciae
09-04-2008, 04:02
:upyours: The US is like a spoiled bully. When WW2 broke out you refused to come fight, why? Because there isn't any oil in Germany/ France I guess but Japan bloodies your nose at Pearl Harbour and ,justifiably, you were mad but instead of a fair fight you used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTUCTION in a revengfull manor to almost enillate the little island. Saddam Hussein taunts you and you practically burn/bomb that country to the ground. Oh but wait it was because of 9/11 which was a terrific to be sure but no reason to invaid Iraq you somehow confused BinLaden with Hssein. And one final thought , and I hope I'm wrong but towers will burn in your country as long as you run around the world acting like jackasses!

Ich glaube dass Sie sehr klug sind. Also doch, sie stellen Öl als Ausrichtung für den Zweiten Weltkrieg. Aber, wenn Öl wichtig ist, dann warum machte Roosevelt Krieg gegen Texas nicht? Ach, und Ihre Name ist auf Deutsch, so, vielleicht, koenntest du Deutsch verstehen.
Magdha
09-04-2008, 04:02
I can't. I could try to open my mind a bit by asking some people though. Such as the American Indians, the palestinians, the Hmong (if I could find any).

The Palestinians are not being "eradicated." Persecuted and oppressed, perhaps, but I don't recall anyone committing outright genocide against them.
Magdha
09-04-2008, 04:04
Hmong were hit pretty hard by the Vietnamese communists, but if you can't find any you're just not trying. Look in Wisconsin, or New York.

And they're still being massacred in Laos even today.
Ashmoria
09-04-2008, 04:13
No, I don't watch fox, that's a pretty low blow.

When the war started, I was 13 or 14. I wasn't paying close attention. I formed assumptions during that time that I have never tested since then. Whenever a debate about the war breaks out, people usually resort to name calling or "agree to disagree." So I the idea that Saddam might not have ever been a serious threat didn't occur to me.

I knew he tried to commit genocide and did some other nasty stuff, but that doesn't have to do with the safety of the United States. I knew he tried to assassinate the older Bush, but that was during a war. I know he refused to let weapons inspectors in, which can be interpreted as a threat, but not a direct threat.

he didnt try to assassinate bush1. thats a lie told by the kuwaitis that got good play here. it was proven false.
New Manvir
09-04-2008, 05:23
Ich glaube dass Sie sehr klug sind. Also doch, sie stellen Öl als Ausrichtung für den Zweiten Weltkrieg. Aber, wenn Öl wichtig ist, dann warum machte Roosevelt Krieg gegen Texas nicht? Ach, und Ihre Name ist auf Deutsch, so, vielleicht, koenntest du Deutsch verstehen.

I believe that you am very intelligent. Thus nevertheless, they place oil as adjustment for the Second World War. But, if oil is important, then why Roosevelt did not make war against Texas? Oh, and your name is on German, so, perhaps, could you German understand.

How close is that to what you actually said?
Balderdash71964
09-04-2008, 05:26
Iraq Liberation Act
The Act found that Iraq had between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act)

1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

It was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to disrupt Saddam's ability to maintain his grip of power.
Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox)

Maybe if President Clinton had resolved his own issues with Iraq and Saddam during his eight years then Bush II wouldn't have had to deal with Iraq and Saddam after 9/11, but since he did still have to deal with enforcing the no fly zones and nearly daily attacks against allied forces by Iraqi military units and wanting to finish one way or another the ten year ongoing problem of Iraq and enforcing sanctions while under fire... It is no surprise that Bush gave Saddam every chance to leave Iraq and there would be no invasion, but he didn't so there was an invasion.

Pretending that there was no fighting before the Iraq Invasion is just revisionist dreaming.
Ashmoria
09-04-2008, 05:31
Iraq Liberation Act
The Act found that Iraq had between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act)

1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

It was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to disrupt Saddam's ability to maintain his grip of power.
Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox)

Maybe if President Clinton had resolved his own issues with Iraq and Saddam during his eight years then Bush II wouldn't have had to deal with Iraq and Saddam after 9/11, but since he did still have to deal with enforcing the no fly zones and nearly daily attacks against allied forces by Iraqi military units and wanting to finish one way or another the ten year ongoing problem of Iraq and enforcing sanctions while under fire... It is no surprise that Bush gave Saddam every chance to leave Iraq and there would be no invasion, but he didn't so there was an invasion.

Pretending that there was no fighting before the Iraq Invasion is just revisionist dreaming.

whats your point as regards the thread topic?
Non Aligned States
09-04-2008, 05:39
It is no surprise that Bush gave Saddam every chance to leave Iraq and there would be no invasion, but he didn't so there was an invasion.


You sir, are a liar.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2683831120070926
Balderdash71964
09-04-2008, 05:39
whats your point as regards the thread topic?

Obviously he threatened, he wasn't just involved in cold war activities, he was actively engaged in near daily live fire...

Operation Southern Watch began on August 27, 1992 with the stated purpose of ensuring Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 of April 5, 1991, which demanded that Iraq "immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected." Nothing in the resolution spelled out the Iraqi no-fly zones or Operation Southern Watch.

Iraqi military bombing and strafing attacks against the Shi’ite Muslims in Southern Iraq during the remainder of 1991 and during 1992 indicated Hussein chose not to comply with the U.N. resolution. Forces from Saudi Arabia, the USA, the UK and France participated in Operation Southern Watch. The commander of JTF-SWA reported directly to US Central Command.

Military engagements in Southern Watch occurred with regularity, though they were usually only reported in the press occasionally.
Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watchhttp://)

Attacking US and Allied troops enforcing UN Sanctions and No Fly Zones enacted via international will is not just threats of attack, it IS attack.
Balderdash71964
09-04-2008, 05:42
You sir, are a liar.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2683831120070926

You sir, are a revisionist fabricator...

Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq to avoid invasion... March 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Tmutarakhan
09-04-2008, 06:10
You sir, are a revisionist fabricator...

Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq to avoid invasion... March 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
And 24 hours later, Bush bombed Saddam's house. You were unaware of this? It was one of the great jokes of all times.
Non Aligned States
09-04-2008, 07:02
You sir, are a revisionist fabricator...

Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq to avoid invasion... March 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Please, do go on. It's amusing. Saddam could have left, but Bush here, was definitely not in the mood to lose his reasons for going to war.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/02/saddam.exile/

And let's not forget that he wasn't really willing to have his claims of WMDs proven to be bald faced lies either.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml
Straughn
09-04-2008, 07:17
You sir, are a liar.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2683831120070926

Not just that, but a vociferous, disingenuous, pathological sort as well.
Muravyets
09-04-2008, 13:57
OK, this is now fucking ridiculous.
Iraq Liberation Act
<snip>
Maybe if President Clinton had resolved his own issues with Iraq and Saddam during his eight years then Bush II wouldn't have had to deal with Iraq and Saddam after 9/11... <snip>

Pretending that there was no fighting before the Iraq Invasion is just revisionist dreaming.
1) Strawman ftw yet again, eh? NOBODY ever said anything even remotely like "there was no fighting before the Iraq Invasion..." This is typical of you -- when you cannot counter the points that are made, you just bring a fake one of your own and attack that instead. It's just pathetic, as well as dishonest.

2) Supporting a policy towards regime change =/= a declaration of war, nor an authorization to use military force, nor an authorization to invade a foreign, sovereign nation. So, Clinton's law is irrelevant to Bush's decisions.

3) The air/ground shooting campaign that went on over the "no-fly" zones in Iraq, and were the basis for neo-con hawks in the US under Clinton claiming that Saddam was violating the cease fire agreement, was ILLEGAL. The UN bitched about them continuously, but typical of them, did nothing about it because the US is too big a bully for those wimps to take on, politically. But that doesn't change the fact -- they were illegal violations of the cease-fire BY THE US, deliberately meant to provoke Saddam. Even though I was a Clinton supporter in most things, I still thought he and the US (my own country) should have been slammed with sanctions for that. The "wrong + wrong = right" argument fails again, my friend.

4) Can we please have some kind of Clinton version of Godwin's Law? When a person gets to such an extreme level of blaming Clinton for Bush's actions that they actually try to argue that, if not for Clinton, poor Bush wouldn't have been forced to invade Iraq without the slightest provocation, I think they deserve to be just shut down and ignored -- maybe laughed at, too. I am heartily sick of this infantile "but the other kid started it" bullshit.

Obviously he threatened, he wasn't just involved in cold war activities, he was actively engaged in near daily live fire...
<snip>
Live fire that was deliberately provoked by US planes. A cease-fire agreement is a two-way street. It doesn't mean that Saddam has to lie still while random planes take pot-shots at this and that or buzz his palaces day and night. It's an old, old game -- poke and poke and poke and poke, and when the other guy takes another swing at you, claim he started the fight. Only nobody else fell for that argument then, and nobody is falling for it now, all your efforts notwithstanding.

Attacking US and Allied troops enforcing UN Sanctions and No Fly Zones enacted via international will is not just threats of attack, it IS attack.
Shooting at enemy planes that are over your nation IS NOT an attack or threat against another nation.

If Saddam had been lobbing missiles outside of his own borders into other nations, that would have been an attack. But he didn't, so the no-fly zone violations were NOT attacks against other nations. They were just territory skirmishes.

And they sure as hell were no threat against the US and no justification for invading Iraq.
Balderdash71964
09-04-2008, 14:02
Not just that, but a vociferous, disingenuous, pathological sort as well.

:rolleyes:

Truth hurt much?

Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS's "60 Minutes" program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

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

"He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack," Piro said.

The Associated Press spoke to a close aide of Saddam's in August 2003, who said that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.
Link (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/25/1255326-interrogator-invasion-surprised-saddam)

How about you fabricate some more revisionist history to support your current political positions...
Balderdash71964
09-04-2008, 14:09
...snip...

You've made your political positions clear, but you've failed to back up any of your assertions with actual facts... Your conclusions are your own and you could have made them if you were President at the time the decisions were made, but your 'facts' are sorely lacking of substantiation outside of your own mind, clearly the President didn't agree with your requirements for war.
Muravyets
09-04-2008, 14:39
You've made your political positions clear, but you've failed to back up any of your assertions with actual facts... Your conclusions are your own and you could have made them if you were President at the time the decisions were made, but your 'facts' are sorely lacking of substantiation outside of your own mind, clearly the President didn't agree with your requirements for war.
HA!! You would be the resident expert at arguing without facts.

The current President of the United States is a bald-faced liar, a corrupt politician, and a war criminal. His entire professional and political resume before and after becoming president is full of factual proof of the first and second accusations, and everything he has done since becoming president is proof of the second and third accusations.

If you are going to argue that he was justified in invading Iraq, you are going to have to present something better than his own lies as evidence.

And if you think that, after all these years of this bullshit, that I am going to start posting links to the hundreds of sources that prove and have been proving Bush's lies and crimes over and over and over again, then you must be on something, pal. I do not believe that you honestly have to be told this entire story over again from the beginning every single time it comes up. I believe this is just another of your dishonest tactics to try to drive people out of the debate so that you will be the last left standing in the thread.

So I'm just going to send your flabby lob back at you: If you are going to claim that everything Bush has said so far is true, then I want to see your proofs for a change. Prove to me that there really was anthrax in that vial that Colin Powell waved around at the UN that day. Prove to me that the Prague meeting ever happened. Prove to me that Saddam really did try to buy yellow-cake from Niger. Prove to me that Saddam supported al-qaeda and was involved in 9/11. Prove to me that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US (complete with Bush's much vaunted mushroom cloud). Prove to me that a 48-hour notice to "get out of town or else" to the recognized ruler of a sovereign nation is anything but obvious bullshit. And then prove to me that launching an attack 24 hours after giving a 48-hour "warning" shows anything but a determination to go to war, no matter what it took -- not an attempt to avoid war.

Every single claimed justification for starting this war has been debunked. The proofs against them, coming from people directly involved in the events, was published as soon as Bush said them, and they have been repeated continuously ever since. Every time Bush, Cheney, or any of the other woodland critters of the administration repeats one of their lies, the chorus of whistleblowers repeats their proofs against them. But they -- and you -- just will not shut up about it. You are not going to win, because what you are saying is not true. It has been proven untrue, just like water has been proven to be wet. We do not have to keep proving it to keep it that way.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result every time, but that's not really accurate. Rather, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting one certain result every time, even though that result never happens. It's called idee fixe. You have this fixed notion of what the result of your magic words is supposed to be, and you are going to keep repeating them until you get that result, no matter how many times it doesn't happen.
Dreilyn
09-04-2008, 14:40
A communist asked me to prove that Saddam Hussein threatened to attack before we went to war with him. I thought it was a given, and when I tried to find proof that he threatened us I couldn't find any.

Please note, this isn't about whether he had WMD or not. It's about whether he made it clear he wanted to kill us.
Saddam did a lot of rhetorical sabre-rattling, made a lot of general-purpose, vague threats - many of which were more about what'd happen if America attacked Iraq, rather than that Iraq would reach across the world and slap the USA.

But no, as far as I'm aware he didn't make any specific threats to attack the US, and equally as far as I'm aware, probably didn't imagine that the US would ever believe he could.

Without wishing to sound supportive of ex-tin-pot dictatorial inadequate (respect for the dead, Dreilyn, come on, play the game), I think he was probably as perplexed by the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction™, supposed 45-minute thing as was anyone outside the White House and Downing Street.
Dyakovo
09-04-2008, 14:46
Actually he did start the war. That's history. Saddam rejected the ceasefire terms, thereby putting his nation at war.

:confused:
Nodinia
09-04-2008, 14:47
You've made your political positions clear, but you've failed to back up any of your assertions with actual facts... Your conclusions are your own and you could have made them if you were President at the time the decisions were made, but your 'facts' are sorely lacking of substantiation outside of your own mind, clearly the President didn't agree with your requirements for war.

And what was Bush thinking at the time.....According to the British Government...


C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

You'll note that the meeting occurred before the UN was approached over Weapons inspectors, and that this was to "help with the legal justification for the use of force.". Thats hardly the scenario laid out by your good self.

Would you care to comment?
Dyakovo
09-04-2008, 14:49
A maniac dictator defies sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
Kind of says to me that responding to that is the responsibility of the UN.
Ignored or circumvented UN economic sanctions.
points to first answer
The point is, why have rules if you there is no consequence to breaking them. A reckless genocidal dictator is a flare for anti-American rhetoric, sounds like a good target to me.
:rolleyes:
Balderdash71964
09-04-2008, 14:56
And what was Bush thinking at the time.....According to the British Government...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

You'll note that the meeting occurred before the UN was approached over Weapons inspectors, and that this was to "help with the legal justification for the use of force.". Thats hardly the scenario laid out by your good self.

Would you care to comment?

When did I lay out any scenario that involved WMD as a reason? I did not. Care to comment about why you assert that I said something I did not? Is it because this is your one and only 'canned' argument and you use it even when it doesn't fit the arguments posited?
Nodinia
09-04-2008, 15:15
When did I lay out any scenario that involved WMD as a reason? I did not. Care to comment about why you assert that I said something I did not? Is it because this is your one and only 'canned' argument and you use it even when it doesn't fit the arguments posited?

In message 54 you post an excerpt which refers to WMD -

Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

the point of this (if not the obvious as I imagined) was what, exactly?

I referred to the use of weapons inspectors by the allies to justify the use of force. If Justification already existed, then why was this mooted? The memo discusses three possible justifications for war, dismissing two and treating the third as doubtful. It does not mention your 'Iraq Liberation act' at all.

You did say It is no surprise that Bush gave Saddam every chance to leave Iraq and there would be no invasion, but he didn't so there was an invasion. . Yet here we have War clearly decided on a full year before any "ultimatum" is given....
Die ReichTotenkopf
09-04-2008, 15:30
You have my full agreement. It was not a threat worth responding to in the way our countries did, but he did proffer forth the language of violence.

:headbang: What about free speach? Isn't that like one of your holy sacrements? So if I say I'm going to bitch slap you even though I do not know you or where you are, thus making tis impossible, you're going to what invade my house with a linch mob , well my neigbours house we all know you can't read maps in the US, steal everything worthwile, rape my wife ,kill my kids, set it on fire and then say oh oops I'm such a pussie I thought he might do it and while I was pissing my panties I thought it sounded lke a good idea!
Fishutopia
09-04-2008, 16:35
Great post Muravyets.

There's none so blind as they that wont see - Jonathon Swift
Knights of Liberty
09-04-2008, 16:40
Iraq Liberation Act
The Act found that Iraq had between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act)

1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

It was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to disrupt Saddam's ability to maintain his grip of power.
Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox)

Maybe if President Clinton had resolved his own issues with Iraq and Saddam during his eight years then Bush II wouldn't have had to deal with Iraq and Saddam after 9/11, but since he did still have to deal with enforcing the no fly zones and nearly daily attacks against allied forces by Iraqi military units and wanting to finish one way or another the ten year ongoing problem of Iraq and enforcing sanctions while under fire... It is no surprise that Bush gave Saddam every chance to leave Iraq and there would be no invasion, but he didn't so there was an invasion.

Pretending that there was no fighting before the Iraq Invasion is just revisionist dreaming.

Blame Clinton, the gift that keeps on giving for Busheviks.
Redwulf
09-04-2008, 18:33
Not that I was making any statement on the legitimacy of the war, merely responding to VS's question but I did provide a link, and only provided a sample from that link but...

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)


That still doesn't sound like a "direct threat to bomb the US". Have you read the thread title and OP?
Cypresaria
09-04-2008, 18:40
Do not invade. Initiating acts of war is never justified UNLESS there is an imminent and direct threat to one's own nation and/or to a nation with which you have a defense treaty and who asks for your help (i.e. Kuwait). As there was NO threat to the US, and no US defense ally asking for help, there was NO justification for the invasion. None of the questionable items in your list, above, constitutes anything that could legitimately be used to justify the US's attack against Iraq.

This the trick of being in charge
At what point does another nation become a threat to yours
When the main carrier fleet leaves port?
When the main carrier fleet is seen 1000 miles out at sea?
When the aircraft are spotted on radar 100 miles from your main naval base?
When the Arizona explodes?

In the first 3 cases listed above, the Japanese government could have claimed "Our ships were on exercise, you had no right to attack them" and you could realistically claim that the US had no right to attack.
But the intent was there in the first 3 cases, so you would be justified in sinking them as they were a threat to the US.

Its easy to sit back behind a keyboard and with the help of hindsight and selective memory call the removal of Saddam's government a mistake, but would you risk your nation, your people on your call being wrong?
Dyakovo
09-04-2008, 18:42
Its easy to sit back behind a keyboard and with the help of hindsight and selective memory call the removal of Saddam's government a mistake, but would you risk your nation, your people on your call being wrong?

Yes.
Nodinia
09-04-2008, 19:03
Its easy to sit back behind a keyboard and with the help of hindsight and selective memory call the removal of Saddam's government a mistake, but would you risk your nation, your people on your call being wrong?

Which presumes they acted out of caution, rather than out of aggressive "imperial" styled notions...Yet their chief ally thought they were cutting their facts to suit their agenda.....
Tmutarakhan
09-04-2008, 19:08
would you risk your nation, your people on your call being wrong?
The alternative apparently is that we need to nuclear-obliterate every other nation in the world: after all, they could be about to attack us, and can we risk being wrong?
Laerod
09-04-2008, 19:20
This the trick of being in charge
At what point does another nation become a threat to yours
When the main carrier fleet leaves port?
When the main carrier fleet is seen 1000 miles out at sea?
When the aircraft are spotted on radar 100 miles from your main naval base?
When the Arizona explodes?

In the first 3 cases listed above, the Japanese government could have claimed "Our ships were on exercise, you had no right to attack them" and you could realistically claim that the US had no right to attack.
But the intent was there in the first 3 cases, so you would be justified in sinking them as they were a threat to the US.So the best solution is to kill them all before they can build carriers?
Its easy to sit back behind a keyboard and with the help of hindsight and selective memory call the removal of Saddam's government a mistake, but would you risk your nation, your people on your call being wrong?It's funny you should say now that pretty much every reason given to justify not going into Iraq turned out to be correct. But that's just preemptive hindsight then, huh?
Dyakovo
09-04-2008, 19:21
So the best solution is to kill them all before they can build weapons?

Fixed and of course... ;)
Straughn
10-04-2008, 05:19
:rolleyes:

Truth hurt much?How would you ever know other than to shield your blistering, teary, blubbering eyes?
:p
I haven't forgotten what you're really like here, so the assertion stands. Prove me wrong.
Nodinia
10-04-2008, 09:11
I see he's run off....
Risottia
10-04-2008, 09:24
we invaded a country that was no threat to us and had never done anything to us.

Actually, Saddam was a good ally of US, NATO and Soviet Union throughout the '80s. Iran scared them like crazy.
Non Aligned States
10-04-2008, 09:52
This the trick of being in charge
At what point does another nation become a threat to yours
When the main carrier fleet leaves port?
When the main carrier fleet is seen 1000 miles out at sea?
When the aircraft are spotted on radar 100 miles from your main naval base?
When the Arizona explodes?

In the first 3 cases listed above, the Japanese government could have claimed "Our ships were on exercise, you had no right to attack them" and you could realistically claim that the US had no right to attack.
But the intent was there in the first 3 cases, so you would be justified in sinking them as they were a threat to the US.


In the 2nd two cases listed above, the Japanese fleet could have been challenged, told to turn back, barring which, it would be constituted an attack. In the first case, it could then be argued that anytime a fleet leaves port, its home nation intends to attack.
Muravyets
11-04-2008, 03:04
This the trick of being in charge
At what point does another nation become a threat to yours
When the main carrier fleet leaves port?
When the main carrier fleet is seen 1000 miles out at sea?
When the aircraft are spotted on radar 100 miles from your main naval base?
When the Arizona explodes?

In the first 3 cases listed above, the Japanese government could have claimed "Our ships were on exercise, you had no right to attack them" and you could realistically claim that the US had no right to attack.
But the intent was there in the first 3 cases, so you would be justified in sinking them as they were a threat to the US.

Its easy to sit back behind a keyboard and with the help of hindsight and selective memory call the removal of Saddam's government a mistake, but would you risk your nation, your people on your call being wrong?
Why not? Bush did. He decided to risk his nation and his people on his call being wrong -- and it was wrong, and as a result he is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of US citizens, the crippling and maiming of tens of thousands of other US citizens, as well as the deaths of countless tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, a list of war crimes laid at the US's door, complete ruination of the US's international political standing, severe damage to our future military readiness, damage to our domestic economy -- and all for what? Just what the hell did he protect us from? Show it to me, because all he ever showed me was a bunch of shit he made up.

And I enjoy the way you assume I'm speaking only from "hindsight" and "selective memory." Sounds like something related to that tired old BS about how "everyone" thought Bush was telling the truth about Saddam when he first started the war, and oh, how terrible it was when the scales fell from our eyes at last.

Well, newsflash -- NOT everyone believed Bush's crap the first time he said it. NONE of the critics Bush tried to discredit and politically destroy believed it. NONE of the public and private critics who called his lies for what they were -- and got called traitors for speaking their minds -- believed it. And I personally never believed anything he said from day one. As a matter of fact, when he got elected the first time -- well before 9/11 -- the immediate reaction in my household was "Oh, shit, now we're going to go to war with Iraq." Do I come from a family of psychics? No, I come from a family of people who pay fucking attention to what's going on around them. I'm not speaking from 20/20 hindsight. I'm just repeating what I've been on about for 7 years.

And as for that "selective memory" wisecrack -- I'm not the one in this thread who seems to be unaware of everything that has happened between the first bomb hitting Baghdad and today (that's that other person, the one with the very apt name). I remember the timeline of events very well because I get refreshers on it. It's all on video and in print, available to be reviewed by anyone at any time, if you want to make sure you know what you're talking about. If I look back at Bush's administration and cannot find a single instance of him not lying about Iraq, I assure you, it is because he never did anything BUT lie about Iraq. If you have evidence otherwise, kindly post it.
Straughn
11-04-2008, 06:11
Well, newsflash -- NOT everyone believed Bush's crap the first time he said it. NONE of the critics Bush tried to discredit and politically destroy believed it. NONE of the public and private critics who called his lies for what they were -- and got called traitors for speaking their minds -- believed it. And I personally never believed anything he said from day one. As a matter of fact, when he got elected the first time -- well before 9/11 -- the immediate reaction in my household was "Oh, shit, now we're going to go to war with Iraq." Do I come from a family of psychics? No, I come from a family of people who pay fucking attention to what's going on around them. I'm not speaking from 20/20 hindsight. I'm just repeating what I've been on about for 7 years.
:fluffle:
Cypresaria
12-04-2008, 01:19
I notice you did not answer the question

The call being you have intel that says a country is planning an attack on yours

Do you attack or not.

This is why I dragged out the pearl harbour thing, if the US had intel on the 25th nov 1941 that Japan wanted to attack the US, would you have attacked Japan before they could get you?

And the reason I said no using information gained after march 2003 is that the people in charge did'nt have that infomation
Ashmoria
12-04-2008, 01:23
I notice you did not answer the question

The call being you have intel that says a country is planning an attack on yours

Do you attack or not.

This is why I dragged out the pearl harbour thing, if the US had intel on the 25th nov 1941 that Japan wanted to attack the US, would you have attacked Japan before they could get you?

And the reason I said no using information gained after march 2003 is that the people in charge did'nt have that infomation

the answer is "it depends entirely on the situation".

and since that was in no way the case in our recent invasion of iraq, it is irrelevant to this thread.
Allothernamestaken
12-04-2008, 04:12
I notice you did not answer the question

The call being you have intel that says a country is planning an attack on yours

Do you attack or not.

This is why I dragged out the pearl harbour thing, if the US had intel on the 25th nov 1941 that Japan wanted to attack the US, would you have attacked Japan before they could get you?

And the reason I said no using information gained after march 2003 is that the people in charge did'nt have that infomation


I would disagree somewhat with the final point as there is growing evidence that the people in charge did in fact have much of this information. I would suggest that such information as has be proven to have been known prior to the invasion be permitted. A good example is the persistent investigations undertaken by Chris Ames here in the UK:

[URL="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/chris_ames/2008/01/britains_wmd_sleight_of_hand.html"]

On these grounds I would argue that the first point is irrelevant, as in 1941 the US intelligence was solid and without doubt, yet in 2003 much of the evidence of WMDs was already in serious doubt. Because of the guaranteed loss of life that ensues from war it should not be undertaken without serious evidence that loss of life would ensue without it.

My personal (ie without evidence) view is that if the US and UK really believed that Iraq had the capability of hitting us inside our own respective countries with such highly destructive weapons, it would have shown and immense disregard for our own citizens lives to launch an attack that left the person in control of these weapons with nothing to lose by retaliating with such weapons. This is part of what convinces me that Bush and Blair were lying when they reported that Hussein was known to have such weapons and was capable of attacking us with them.