Prewar justifications: bringing democracy to the ME

All a big lie concocted so the United States could go to war under false pretenses and the men in charge could make their rich friends richer.

 

Iraq is closer to Germany/France than the US. If Iraq goes to h*ll in a handbasket, they will likely see the fruits of our Iraq liberation efforts long before we do. BTW, would you ask the same question wrt Afganistan?

 

hey..post that part from the godfather again!!!

 

Yea I know, it was so good I had to use it again!

 

This is a really silly question. Saddam, of course. But being a "greater threat to world peace and security" than GWB does not qualify Iraq for invasion.

 

So you ran out of any type of substantive response and instead just quoted Journey?

 

Methinks you are now a French Apologist.

So what do think the answer to the following question is : What was the necessity of involving the French in Afganistan?

 

Then why bother?

 

If you don't the liberals b**** and moan about unilateral action, throwing away the goodwill built up after 9/11, destroying our diplomatic ties to traditional allies, etc.

 

Okay. So, do you think that Bush and the administration really, truly, sincerely considered Sadaam a clear and present danger, an immediate threat to be dealt with?

You think that Bush only really considered regime change after 9/11, not before?

In your opinion, they did not exaggerate or fabricate any evidence showing Sadaam had WMD? They did not ignore or supress any evidence showing that he didn't? (Yes, the onus was on Sadaam to prove compliance; but the war had to be sold to us and this is what I'm talking about- the sell.)

 

Let's take out one word of this sentence...

"If you don't the Americans b**** and moan about unilateral action, throwing away the goodwill built up after 9/11, destroying our diplomatic ties to traditional allies, etc."



Do you really want to go here? Do you truly think that "throwing away the goodwill built up after 9/11, destroying our diplomatic ties to traditional allies, etc." ...is meaningless in a world more closely interwoven than it has ever been? That having allies is meaningless? That "destroying our diplomatic ties to traditional allies" is meaningless? That "throwing away the goodwill built up after 9/11" is meaningless? That it hasn't hurt our country? That it hasn't made us weaker? Do you deny that the bulk of goodwill built up after 9/11, which continued during the Afghan War, wasn't throw away when Bush unilaterally made his elective war upon Iraq?

Truly? Do you use this tool, the internet, to follow the news at all?

I have to conclude that you do not. To be blunt, and this addresses basso as well, how can a man or woman of intelligence fail to see that the invasion and occupation of Iraq damaged our country? One can certainly hold the opinion that it was the right thing to do, and although I would disagree, I respect that opinion, but how can any of you deny that doing so has weakened our country both militarily and diplomatically?

If you believe this adventure was the right thing to do, how can you deny that it has caused our country to pay a terrible price, and a terrible price we will be paying for many years to come? Is there no accountability? Is any criticism, from any source, Republican or Democrat, moderate or independent or conservative, to be automatically dismissed, with the frequent implication that said criticism is somehow un-American and unpatriotic, no matter the source? Is that truly the road down which you wish to take this country?

I'll leave it at that, because I'm trying to maintain some civility.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

The failure to join the coalition whose aim was to topple Saddam Hussein's regime certainly cost a boatload of goodwill I had stored up for France, Germany, Russia et al.

 

So GWB was pandering to the left ...

You read it here first.

 

We saw how much polls matter in the election, they are meaningless.

Come on, he did not "cook up" anything, even Bill Clinton said that they had WMD, and the fact that he used them before and failed to follow the UN sanctions showing that he destroyed them gave serious credibilty to the issue. It has since been proven false, but that does not mean they "cooked it up" it just means that intelligence work is innaccurate at best.

I concede that I too wanted us to finish the work in Afganastan first, and was swayed by the WMD intelligence. However, that was the intelligence that we had, and we had that intelligence in the previous administration too, I don't think he lied, per se, but clearly you are correct in the intelligence was faulty.

However, I also think it is a bigger play for a more stable middle East, and I support that as well. Taking Saddam out was a good thing for the entire planet, IMHO, and we will not know the ramifications of it for 20-50 years...just like the occupation of Germany and Japan after WW2.

Actually, there were many terrorist camps in Iraq at the time of the outbreak of the war. And Saddam was certainly an enemy of the United States, it is not a huge leap of logic to think that he would help aide terrorists against us. He certainly can't do that now.

Yes, not a threat, even though he had put a contract hit out on our President, and controlled a good portion of the world's oil reserves which threaten the world's economy. The biggest issue is all the corrupt leaders in France and Germany and China who were doing under the table deals with his regime thus allowing the UN sanctions to fail.

DD

 

How easy we forget-

Saddam was our 'friend' for years. We knew about the WMD.
And when our needs change so must our friends.

The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet
by Jeremy Scahill

“Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out.”
—Donald Rumsfeld

Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”

In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”

The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”

Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.”

Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.”

Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick’s reaction was hardly a call to action.

Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”

A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”

In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

 

Anyone who reads that our 'Intelligence' was faulty should consider two things:

1. That is the 'official' statement for the public given to the media.
2. Our Intelligence is the very best in the world and has rarely made such a blunder, much less missing the most trivial of details.
The CIA is extremely well run and efficient. Coordination between intelligence agencies has never been a problem. I have read many good articles by current and former CIA personnel who validate the extensive cooperation of intelligence both with in our own agencies and other nations.
3. The Intelligence world in general is very complex, effective and interdependent. They are way way smarter and more cunning and more intelligent than I am. I don't think anything they wanted to accomplish would surprise me.

If our government wants it to happen it will happen.
If our government doesn't want it to happen, it won't happen.
We are that good. And that powerful.
If you understand that you have a better picture of why things happen in the world.

If you look at events in the world as deliberate and calculated and begin to look for different answers than what is spit out on the boobtube each day you will always cross paths with Intelligence agencies. They are thorough and capable.

From Columbia, to Bosnia, to Iraq our Intelligence people know and in most cases have the ability to manipulate what is needed.

In the area of information and covert action the CIA is the superior beast on the planet.

IMHO