Funny how....

[Jim1999]

I don't think Bush or Blair lied per se. I think the two of them believed an unconfirmed lie fed to them at the time because they wanted to go to war with Iraq.

I am not sure that Chretien had a hold on the truth or used his personal animosity for Bush to withhold Canadian involvement.

The reality is that Saddam kept a check on the whole MIddle East and containment was a key issue. There was no direct threat on America or the Western World from Iraq and time was not the enemy to discover the facts. Bush and Blair had to rush right in along with some "nothing" countries for support. The major countries held back, whether anyone likes it or not.

The death toll of American young men and women continues. They serve their country valiantly and I give the that. At the same time, I see a vast waste of American youth, all good people.

Great Britain tried for some 50 years to inject democracy in the Arab world and finally gave it up as a hopeless cause. America supported Iraq and the "bad" Saddam when Iran was the enemy of America. How did things change? Is this a political act of expedience, at what great cost?

Like Viet Nam and like Korea, it is time to get out and try again by preaching a better ideology rather than brute force. War may have halted world domination in the 2nd World War, but it didn't resolve the political issues.

It is only in recent years that Germany apologized for Hitler, and it didn't take military force. It was a change in personal responsibility; an ideological conversion.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TexasSky]

Jim,

At least your arguement makes sense.

God bless.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BillyMac:
And just how was Saddam involved in any of that??? Reality says: not at all.

I think you need a reality check.

Tell that to Bill Clinton and the Democrats who made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States in 1998:

"After all, we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.

That man was Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998. That Act called for "regime change," and the replacement of Saddam with a democratically elected government. And that's what we're about to get! Nor was Clinton alone.

As Al Gore observed:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq."

- www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6859893

The Iraq Liberation Act passed the House, 360 - 38, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

 

[TexasSky]

Remember this:


WASHINGTON -- Despite Iraqi threats of attacks against coalition bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the United States remains committed to enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq and containing
Saddam Hussein.

Threats "will get him nowhere," Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon said here Feb. 16. "Any attack by Iraq against one of our allies in the region would be a severe mistake and would be met with a very swift and sure response."

The threats are a sign of Saddam's increasing desperation and isolation, Bacon said. "He's tried diplomacy with his neighbors.
He's tried to cajole them into supporting his position, and that's failed. His neighbors -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey -- have all made it very clear that they believe he should honor
the U.N. Security Council resolutions."

Since late December, Iraq has persistently violated the no-fly zones and aggressively challenged patrolling coalition aircraft.
In response, U.S. and British forces have attacked Iraqi missile and air defense sites with missiles and precision-guided munitions. U.S. and Iraqi forces have engaged in almost daily confrontations.

"They have turned on their radar. They have fired anti-aircraft batteries and also fired missiles at our planes over the last
month and a half," Bacon noted. "We have responded properly against these attacks, and we will continue to respond properly
against these attacks."

U.S. pilots act in self-defense, doing "the best they can to protect themselves and to carry out their missions," he said.

As a result of the coalition strikes, Iraq has sustained fairly heavy losses to its integrated air defense system, Bacon said.
"I have no reason to believe that those damaging counter strikes will end until Iraq stops challenging the coalition aircraft
policing the no-fly zone."

Threats against coalition forces and neighboring nations that support coalition air operations are Iraq's latest form of
defiance. Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, is one of Iraq's threatened targets. The Turkish base hosts U.S. and British air
forces supporting Operation Northern Watch. Bacon said the facility is at the very outer edge of the range of Scud missiles.

Incirlik is protected by Patriot missile batteries deployed recently at the request of the Turkish government. "They will stay there as long as our Turkish allies feel that they're
needed," Bacon declared.

 

[TexasSky]

Or remember THIS:

Sunday, August 12, 1990; Page A01

AMMAN, AUG. 11 -- Saddam Hussein, the 53-year-old Iraqi leader who has provoked one of the gravest international crises in many years, has built his career on a Baath Party revolutionary's dream of uniting the Arab world at the point of a gun.

Last week, the Arabs finally began to turn their guns on Saddam.

The decision by the Arab League on Friday to defy Saddam's threats to wage "holy war" and instead send an Arab force to join American troops in defending Saudi Arabia from Iraq showed that Saddam was isolated politically -- perhaps for the first time since assuming power.

 

[TexasSky]

Or remember this:
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Saddam Hussein's government discussed supplying unmanned aerial vehicles to terrorists, according to a CIA report made public last week, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

The Iraq Survey Group report stated that the development of the Al Quds remotely piloted aircraft included links between the program director and terrorists.

Al Quds program director Imad Abd-al-Latif Al Rida reported that four Al Quds drones were to be used as "flying bombs" in an attempt to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to a source who worked on the Al Quds program.

 

[emeraldctyangel]

I am just waiting for Billy to start singing that little ditty...OH WE SOLD HIM THE WEAPONS.

-over 600 K in US currency in ONE room of one of 145 palaces found by US Troops in May 03. There was more but that is what I personally have knowledge of.

-Saddam signed an agreement in 91 with the UN stating that he would get out of Kuwait, stay out of it, and destroy all weapons (and they had a grocery list of them) in the presence of UN inspectors.

-Saddam did none of that, led inspectors around a few of the palaces for 12.5 years, complained of embargos against him which he said, nobody would give the children of Iraq medicine and food, while at the same time said he never needed help

-Saddam got into some crazy scam with oil for food, yet I personally saw hundreds of starving and sick children.

So, if we sold him weapons, we knew he had them, he used them on Kuwait and Israel, the UN listed them, and he did not comply with the UN resolution to disarm...WHERE DID THEY GO?

Al Queda was shopping and Saddam had a garage sale. What he couldnt get out of the country we found...and those pics are plastered all over the net by soldiers and Marines who were there when we found them. We found them in schools and hospitals, and buried in the sand.

Yeah that Saddam is a real great guy - just misunderstood and blamed for everything. *smirks*

The war in Iraq has done two things: it has taken one of the most unstable regimes out and has put all the al queada more or less, in one spot.

Pull up your pants Billy. Your hate for THE PRESIDENT is showing.

 

[OCC]

But how come THE PRESIDENT did a 180 turn from trying to find Bin Laden to looking for Saddam?

I've heard things like "Saddam violated UN regulations"...which is probably true, I'm not going to argue that. I would like to point out that didn't THE PRESIDENT violate UN regulations by declaring war? I know you will use the "self defense" argument and that's fine. But just don't use the "violation of UN regulations" in the process k?

"Pull up your pants Billy. Your hate for THE PRESIDENT is showing." As for this comment, that probably wasn't very fair of you. It seems to be done for the purpose of "embarrassing" the brother. Someone told me that qualified as slander, or to be more accurate, libel (due to the medium). Last question...would your "hatred" of the President show if the President was a Democrat?

 

[OCC]

Blackbird said: "You want to get me "flamed up"----just call yourself a US citizen---and then come "dump" on me about how trashy we are----you just think "The Big Red One"(US 1st Armored Division) is severe in diveing out revenge . . .!!!"

I say: But even a US citizen has the right to be against a war. Being against a war would not be "dumping on you". I would think that men who served in a war would be much tougher than to cry that someone dumps on them, simply because they don't support a war.

As for revenge...well Jesus Christ says He will do the revenging.

 

[OCC]

Sorry for all the posts but what was said earlier was true. The War of 1812 was a stalemate, though each side believes they won. The British committed an act of terrorism when they burned down the White House. Why are they all of a sudden "great friends" of the United States?

 

[Baptist Bro]

"All of a sudden"? That was a few years ago.

 

[OCC]

But it doesn't matter how many years it has been. The British committed an act of terrorism. I would think feelings against them would still be pretty strong? Or are they not, simply because they weren't Muslims?

 

[Baptist Bro]

You're joking, right?

 

[OCC]

I really tire of people mocking me everytime I try to make a point. Excuse me if I think "differently". The question stands!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by King James:
The British committed an act of terrorism. I would think feelings against them would still be pretty strong?

Obviously, there is a political and culture tie between the U.S. and England from the colonization that started about 400 years ago.

Things improved after the sinking of the "Lusitania" that had British and American passengers.

Then King Edward VIII abdicating in favor of an American, Wallis Simpson, helped also.

By the way, the burning of Washington, D.C. is considered to have been done in retaliation for the American burning of York(present day Toronto).

 

[just-want-peace]

I really tire of people mocking me everytime I try to make a point.

[Really, was that remark necessary? Removed!]

[ June 27, 2005, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

[emeraldctyangel]

Originally posted by King James:
But how come THE PRESIDENT did a 180 turn from trying to find Bin Laden to looking for Saddam?

I've heard things like "Saddam violated UN regulations"...which is probably true, I'm not going to argue that. I would like to point out that didn't THE PRESIDENT violate UN regulations by declaring war? I know you will use the "self defense" argument and that's fine. But just don't use the "violation of UN regulations" in the process k?

"Pull up your pants Billy. Your hate for THE PRESIDENT is showing." As for this comment, that probably wasn't very fair of you. It seems to be done for the purpose of "embarrassing" the brother. Someone told me that qualified as slander, or to be more accurate, libel (due to the medium). Last question...would your "hatred" of the President show if the President was a Democrat?

Last question first - No. I don't hold hatred for anyone. Not even a democrat (very silly really to sort us into piles like that). In fact, the last 13 years I have spent obeying orders of those appointed over me, it means nothing which political stripe the President wore. All I am interested in is the preservation of the freedoms for which my brothers and sisters have bled and died. Who is in charge doesnt matter - just that someone is in charge is what matters. I respect the office. That is what will sustain this country - not backbiting and pointing fingers.

At last check (yesterdat), we have hundreds of thousands of personnel looking for bin laden and none looking for Saddam. We caught him. One down, one to go.
I know of no 180 degree turn by the President.

If you can find UN regulations regarding war, let me know. The really interesting thing about international law is that most of has not been written yet, so rather hard to cut and dry that one.

The UN published a rather lame statement on the US intent to disarm Iraq and get Saddam and his sons. But they have done little to stop it, and in fact opened up a nice office space in Iraq that was previously not afforded to them by the regime. Insurgents did bomb it once and unfortunatley kill a few people present which would speak to me that they didnt think much of the resolutions either. BTW they arent regulations, they are resolutions. Regulations would imply the UN actually had their own enforcement and well they dont. The United States of America has it's own constitution and will follow what is best for the American people. Whatever the reason used for going to war, it matters none now. We are there and we are getting it done.

If that other guy is embarrassed, my apologies.

 

[TexasSky]

King James,

No, the President didn't violate sanctions. There were none against the US.

A little history on all of this.

Saddam attacked his neighbors. He lost.
He attacked another neighbor. They asked the US for help. We stepped in.

He lost.

We didn't want to punish Iraq for Saddam's insanity, so, the UN said, basically, "Okay, keep your country, but you must play nice with your neighbors, and you have to follow these rules. You have to get rid of all of these weapons and prove you did so. You have to let our inspection teams in to make sure you aren't doing this again. You have to let UN forces fly over the area to monitor you, etc., etc., etc."

Well, Saddam started shooting at the planes.
Saddam refused entrance the inspectors.
Saddam couldn't account for thousands of bombs that were on the list before and not on the list afterwards.
Saddam killed people in his country who DID cooperate with the inspectors.

And then one nation steps up and says, "He's trying to buy long-range nuclear deployment devices, and he's bragging that he has altered some of the weapons he was allowed to keep to contain chemical and biological weapons. He is trying to sell those weapons to terrorists."

Then Nigeria steps up saying, "We've got the proof."

Between the two of them, Clinton and Bush gave Saddam 12 chances to comply, and 12 times he thumbed his nose at the UN.

Bush went to the UN and said, "If you don't enforce your rules, they aren't rules, they are a joke. MAKE the man comply."

He gave him a time limit.

The inspectors were allowed in, but they were monitored, they were told where they were allowed to go, and where they were not allowed to go. The people who told them, "look here," were killed.

Intelligence reports from Saudia Arabia said, "Bin Laden has gone to Saddam. He knows that the US thinks Saddam hates him, he is approaching Saddam on the basis of, "We have a common enemy. Let us do him in, and then we can fight one another."

What would you have thought had it been your job to make sure that Saddam did not sell chemical weaposn to the Al Quaida?

What would you have thought had it been your job to make sure nerve gas was not released on the New York subway during rush hour? Or at the Super Bowl?

What would you have thought had it been your job to make sure Saddam, who had a history of attacking his neighbors, did not attack those allies in range of the weapons he had?

When its your job to protect, and your largest city has just been attacked, would you really keep going, "Okay, let him ignore the rules one-more-time," up to the 13th, and 14th and 15th times?

 

[TexasSky]

One other thing.

During Desert Storm, Saddam set the Kuwait oil fileds on fire. These fields were the largest supplier of oil to the world.

He threatened to set the Saudie fields on fire also.

Fortuantely for the world, the fires he did set were contained before the world lost the majority of its fuel.

When we talk about "war for oil," realize - everything you own and use probably has some connection to oil.

Plastic depends on petroleum by-products.
Your computer, your pencil holder, your car, your surgery, your pill bottles, the fibers in your rugs, your phones, you clothing, ..... all are oil based at some level. There probably isn't a machine in the world that doesn't use oil in some form, whether as fuel, or lubricant, or plastic parts.

Destroy the world's oil supply and you are not just "making people walk to work." You're throwing them into the dark ages.

That is what Saddam threatened the world with if we didn't let him control all of the Middle East. Can you imagine what he would have threatened if we HAD allowed it?

 

[TexasSky]

Regarding Bin Laden - We're still looking, and for awhile people believed he was hiding out in Iraq. Some said Saddam was protecting him. Some said the Kurds were hiding him. In either case, there were major rumors flying around the world that if we took Iraq, we ended up with both Saddam and Bin Laden.

As to Saddam - you really need to read the man's history. I think he is worse than Hitler ever thought about being, and I am convinced Hitler was an early test model of the Anti-Christ.

Saddam served his son-in-law's head on a platter at a dinner his daughter's were attending. He attacked Kuwait, and his soliders would use new-borns from the Kuwaitee hosptials in "tossing games" to "see how far they could throw." Athelets in Iraq who didn't win in International competition were tortured to deathh. He used chemical warfare against his own citizens.

The man is clearly psychotic, and he was a psychotic with an army at his command in a place where his weapons could reach peaceful countries all around him, and he was threatening to USE those weapons on those countries if they didn't stop being nice to the US and Europe.

He called for a Holy War, just as Bin Laden called for one. The difference between the two - Bin Laden landed 3 planes in the US. Saddam used warfare against Iraqi citizens and Kuwait. Which one is really more dangerous in the long run?