How is it going in Iraq a month after the transfer of "sovereignity"?

Looking at all of the criteria you listed, it only supports that Saddam was not a threat to anyone but Iraqis. He didn't have the army that he did at the time he invaded Kuwait. He was boxed in and unable to invade anyone.

All of the acts mentioned were against his own people. He no longer had the WMD's needed to continue with that, and hadn't committed any activities like that in years. Again he was so boxed in and watched that it would have been known had he started back with that activity.

The rest of your arguments only goes to show what we ALL agree upon. Saddam was a bad man who shouldn't be the leader of Iraq.

None of your argument shows that he was a threat to anyone outside of Iraq's borders. The policy of regime change is a good one. The method of invasion to acheive that policy was a foolish one.

 

Very well put.

 

Please. Why shouldn't those against the intervention have to defend leaving Saddam in place? I've seen this 'why do you hate america' thing a lot and I really have no idea why that's an answer to my point. If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power, right?

Well, at least you acknowledge its your opinion.

Gee, is that glynch bashing Muslims? Funny how that works. Yes, I certainly don't want to see that happen, but again your making claims without warrants. Time will tell whether or not that actually happens. But I'm not sure what you mean 'posing.' In fact that pretty insulting as nothing I've ever posted on this board would legitimize that opinion.

No, it doesn't go against most opinion. As we KNOW, as in facts, he was prone to miscalculation, he was determined to aquire nuclear WMD, he was aggressive militarily and invaded neighbors on two sides. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that once Iraq's oil money was flowing again (post sanctions) that Saddam would inevitably acquired those WMD and that is certainly a threat.

Because it wasn't yellow cake or aluminum tubes that made me believe he had WMD. It was (a) his history of driving WMD programs, (b) his own statements that insinuated he had WMD, and (c) his obsfucation of the UN inspections - why hide something you don't have (see miscalculation above).

 

I can defend leaving Saddam in power. As General Zinni stated, Saddam was completely contained. His military was a shell of its former self and the weapons inspectors were about to finish their work. There was, in addition to the "intelligence" that said Saddam had WMDs, plenty of evidence that the real issue was that Iraq simply did not document the destruction of said WMDs. Saddam could not have become a threat to the US for a LONG time and with the world looking over his shoulder, that threat was an outside one at best.

It is also the opinion of many in the US, along with the VAST majority of the rest of the world. The thing is, the administration simply would not listen to anyone else's opinion. There is plenty of evidence that GWB wanted to attack Iraq even BEFORE 9/11 and that desire led them to accept questionable "intelligence" and ignore any other options. Even when Saddam offered to open Iraq up to the CIA and FBI, we ignored the diplomatic solution because our war drums were already beating.

I don't know what your point is here, but being prone to miscalculation is not a reason for war.

And did not have the means. With the constraints of the international community, Saddam couldn't do anything. He might have had a desire to acquire a nuclear device, but every single leader in the world would like to have that capability.

And was totally contained by the UN, had only a shell of a military, and would not have been capable of witstanding an attack from any one of its neighbors save Kuwait.

Not with the pressure of the international community under the regulations the UN would have imposed. If there had been any whiff of an active nuclear program, I would have supported invading or bombing the facility, but a DESIRE to have nuclear weapons is one shared by every single world leader whose country does not have that technology.

Obviously, he wasn't hiding anything. We could have confirmed that, but GWB was too quick to rush to war. Saddam could not have become a threat to us for at least a decade and maybe far more. Again, we could have kept pressure on him and continued to monitor intelligence and dealt with the problem when it became one.

Saddam was not a threat and that is an opinion shared by at least one prominent Marine Corps General.

 

Even if I grant all this, which I don't, you still eat the impact of his reign of terror. That's not good. Unless you think things like totalitarianism and despotic genocide are good things. My point here is that if you are against the intervention, and for containment, as you are, then you are functionally saying you would rather Saddam was still in power in Iraq.

It is a component of assessing what a 'threat' is.

No, had the inspectors finished their work, sanctions would have been removed and Saddam would once again have complete control over Iraq's oil $. He could again refit his military both conventionally and in respect to WMDs. He would have the 'means' at his disposal. He already has the motive (see empirical aggression against neighbors and previous WMD attempts). Remember, it is FACT that he had a nuclear program. It is a FACT that he has great ambitions in the region AND that he has miscalculated in the past with his aggression.

In addition, when advocating continuing 'containment' you are advocating the same policy that produced 9/11 (see troops in Saudi Arabia because of Iraq) and you are advocating NOTHING for those under Saddam's boots.

My contention is that he was an inevitable threat, not an imminent one.

 

Sad? Why would I be sad? I think the Iraqis are hands down better off without Saddam. That's nothing to be sad about. Again you gleefully obsess about WMD's but fail to acknowledge that given the choice YOU would still have Saddam in power. You're closer to Henry Kissinger than you think.

Most of the world thought we should abandon Bosnians to Serbian rape camps. Most of the world thought we should abandon Iraqis to Saddam. Most of the world thought the world was flat at one time, so I'm not sure how much stock to put in that. Whether it has made the world less safe or not we shall see. You think holding hands and singing kumbaya together is going to help them so go ahead and do that while someone else actually DOES SOMETHING.

 

Oh. I support preemptive war, true, but also humanitarian interventions. Either way removing saddam was the right thing to do.

Well, we can start with Syria and Iran...... ...I mean, uh, Sudan is looking like a possible spot for intervention.

You did this once before. Please don't slander my integrity by insinuating that I would duck service. My father, and my grandfather and his grandfather all served this country when called. I would do so without hesitation. You had your chance and you not only skipped town but left the country. So don't talk to me about structuring your 'beliefs' around saving your own skin.

 

I would rather that Saddam was still in power if that means that we had not used questionable "intelligence" to start a preemptive war that simply was not justified. Saddam in power under the supervision of the international community would be far preferable to the situation we have now.

As far as "genocide" goes, Saddam had stopped his killing sprees during the '80s, when he was still supported by the US.

The only FACT you have mentioned is that Saddam had the desire to acquire a nuclear weapon, a desire shared by every single world leader who lacks that technology. If Saddam had possessed an active nuclear program, I would have supported his ouster, but as the weapons inspectors (both the UN and US inspectors) have reported, there was no such active program.

He may have had the $ once the oil started flowing again, but with the world looking over his shoulder, he could not have done anything too aggressive or we would have taken him out.

Come on. There have been NO credible links between Saddam and 9/11 and even the assumption that 9/11 happened because of the US troops in Saudi Arabia is a farfetched one.

Containment was working. Look at how weak Iraqs military was. Look at the lack of WMDs and WMD programs. Look at any of the FACTS and you will find that Saddam would not have had the means to become a significant threat for at least a decade, maybe more.

And your contention is totally unprovable. You make assumption after assumption, parroting the GOP line and talking points and yet come up short in the proof department.

 

Then here we part ways. I guess you're for Saddam and I'm not. Congratulations.

Guess you missed all the thousands he killed in the 90s. Put up your Duran Duran albums and read some recent history.

Yes, because as we've seen the world is ready to take out and nuclear proliferation threat (can you say North Korea?). Because when we look at empirical proof, rather than conjecture, we see that the international community was ready to take him out if he had a WMD program and if he attacked neighbors (oh wait, they weren't, in fact, as PROVEN by the first Gulf War).

Silly boy, tricks are for kids. Osama is ON RECORD as stating categorically that THE reason he declared the US an enemy was US troops in SA. Try spreading your wings and reading something other than High Times, Andy.

Containment was working as is pertained to his WMD programs, obviously. It was not doing anything for the Iraqis under Saddam's boot, and it was doing nothing, and would do nothing, for any future programs Saddam enacted AFTER the sanctions were lifted. And as I said above, containment was THE reason 9/11 happened. I don't think that's a policy we want to continue.

I don't parrot anyone, slick. I make my own conclusions. I look at the facts and make my decision. He had the motive to be aggressive conventionally and otherwise in the future (power in the Gulf re: other states, money, prestige). He had the opportunity (as soon as sanctions are lifted he has billions in oil which he controls completely). He has the history of aggression and miscalculation. Those are not opinions, those are hard cold FACTS. You cannot deny ANY of those FACTS. Now, you can say you don't believe he would do these things again, but then you will look foolish.

 

We haven't actually seen any negative effects, as per our safety, since our intervention in Iraq. So I don't know what you're talking about. Al Queda was pissed off and active before Iraq. So please elaborate.

I can believe we need more doctors in this country without enrolling in medical school. My point is that you are the LAST person on the face of the planet who should be talking about 'obligations' to go and fight.

Which gets you diddly squat.

Cool. Its too bad that you feel we should have left the Iraqis to their fate under Saddam. I guess its good that you weren't in charge when the Bosnian Muslims needed our help either, because Serbia wasn't really a threat to you or your country (which ever one that is these days).

 

Hayes, maybe you can go watch a movie rather than the Convention as your anger seems to be overflowing tonight. I hear that new Michael Moore flick is pretty good. He actually seems to do more fact checking than you too...

 

I've met him so I'm familiar with both who he is and what his disposition is like, thank you. He does not find Knick bashing with a specific Rocket flare palatable.

And I'm not a Republican, dumbass.

 

Well, I don't believe I ever insulted you by calling you a republican, but for the record, you're a nominally independent dumbass.

 

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. It seemed you were saying I was angry after watching the convention, implying I'm at least anti-democrat (which would functionally make me a Republican). Since I'm a dumbass please explain what you meant.