That article tackled everything except the kitchen sink, oh and, Iraq's breaking of the peace treaty ( resolutions) for 10 years, that stopped hostilities. It would appear that "deterrence"was not going to be the magic cure all, after all.MorbidFetus wrote:
I agree that Clinton is a fool, but...Stingray24 wrote:
Hmm, apparently there was intelligence back then that pointed to Saddam as a threat. Ooooooh, but that was different, he's a Democrat.
"Hussein's record of chemical weapons use is deplorable, but none of his victims had a similar arsenal and thus could not threaten to respond in kind. Iraq's calculations would be entirely different when facing the US because Washington could retaliate with WMD if Iraq ever decided to use these weapons first. Hussein thus has no incentive to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the US and its allies unless his survival is threatened. This simple logic explains why he did not use WMD against US forces during the Gulf War and has not fired chemical or biological warheads at Israel.
Furthermore, if Hussein cannot be deterred, what is stopping him from using WMD against US forces in the Persian Gulf, which have bombed Iraq repeatedly over the past decade? The bottom line: Deterrence has worked well against Hussein in the past, and there is no reason to think it cannot work equally well in the future."
- Summed up pretty nicely
Key word there HAD!!!!PHPR Hunter wrote:
There is no question that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That is not even a debatable claim. He had them and he used them both against his own citizens and in the war against Iran. Did he rebuild the weapons and/or capacity after Bush 41 set him back? The intelligence agencies (U.S., British and Russian) believed he did. Based on his record of having weapons and using weapons along with the belief, admittedly presumption, was it wrong to attack Iraq before they attacked us? It is easy to be 100% right when you Monday morning quarterback. However, these same people that are bemoaning the fact that we attacked Iraq would be calling for Bushes impeachment if there had actually been one. Look at the claims from the 911 attacks. Just imagine, no truly imagine....if there had been attacks 100 x what happened in New York.
Personally, there was a basis, IMO, to attack Iraq. They invaded Kuwait and as part of an agreement not be have their country torn apart by the coalition, Iraq agreed to completely open and unfettered inspections of all their facilities. Sort of a probation for invading their neighbor. When they kicked out the inspectors, to no consequence by the U.N., they violated probation. That act alone, justified the overthrow of the Hussein regime.
Low and inappropriate blow.Harmor wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Al Qaeda is funding the Democrats...I mean who else is helping them in Washington? Not Bush.
Kracker if this is your logic, why aren't we condemning Israel and invading them. They are in violation of UN sanctions as well and in complete defiance.. Don't get me wrong, I'm on Israel's side in this one, but your logic should hold true no matter what country it is, correct?kr@cker wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.htmlIkarti wrote:
The difference here is "We cannot allow Saddam to make these weapons" does not equal "ZOMG Saddam has weapons we have proof." It also does not equal going to war over misinformation and lies, like a certain president.Stingray24 wrote:
stuff about Clinton
i still stand by my reasoning that whether or not the WMD's were there is irrelevant, it was his compliance with the surrender treaty that is
now this is where you say "those are old and degraded from 1990", doesn't change the fact that (A) they weren't supposed to be there, and (B) my old degraded knife still hurts like a sonuvabitch
Remember this:kr@cker wrote:
I don't remember anything about Saddam being "involved" with 9/11, i remember thisMorbidFetus wrote:
Except that's not why we went to war with Iraq. Saddam was "involved" with 9/11, remember? The American public didn't give a shit about what UN Resolutions Iraq violated and would have never given their support for the war. The Cons knew this and that's why they stacked a bunch of shit on top of the 12 year old stalemate sandwhich.kr@cker wrote:
why a war in iraq is necessary
hussein signed a surrender treaty, failed to abide by it, ignored bureacratic attempts to resolve the situation for over a decade, and to allow him to continue to do so (and this is the most important part) would have made all future surrender treaties impotent
sums it up pretty nicely
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle … le_id=2686
it seems the claim that iraq was involved in 9/11 is a claim put into the whitehouse's mouth by the likes of Chris Matthews (who has a habit of putting words in other people's mouths) and Bill Maher just so they can turn around and say "see you're wrong"
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
Your memory seems to be convenient Kracker...
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-10-01 07:56:42)
your reading comprehension is convenient as well, it still does not say "Saddam orchestrated 9/11", it says that removing the regime goes hand in hand with the war against those that did, and it seems that once Saddam was outed, Zarqawi, Moussaoui and such have been all to eager to prove that right, or do you conveniently not remember their presence in Iraq since hussein jumped into the hidey-hole
Israel has yet to willingly surrender it's sovereignty through a surrender treatyGATOR591957 wrote:
Kracker if this is your logic, why aren't we condemning Israel and invading them. They are in violation of UN sanctions as well and in complete defiance.. Don't get me wrong, I'm on Israel's side in this one, but your logic should hold true no matter what country it is, correct?kr@cker wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.htmlIkarti wrote:
The difference here is "We cannot allow Saddam to make these weapons" does not equal "ZOMG Saddam has weapons we have proof." It also does not equal going to war over misinformation and lies, like a certain president.
i still stand by my reasoning that whether or not the WMD's were there is irrelevant, it was his compliance with the surrender treaty that is
now this is where you say "those are old and degraded from 1990", doesn't change the fact that (A) they weren't supposed to be there, and (B) my old degraded knife still hurts like a sonuvabitch
and those un resolutions are suspiciously one sided, where are all the ones written to protect Israel? How about some implementing sanctions against Iran for sending rockets to Hezbollah? How about one that requires Hezbollah to disarm and quit targetting civilians/using civvy's for shields?
Did you not listen to the news after 9/11 or something? That's the thing, Bush&Co. have danced cleverly around the Saddam/Osama Link. They tried to draw a tie between them and when the truth came out Bush responded that Saddam never "ordered" the attack, which is technically not a lie since Bush never, at least as far as I've read, stated this in the first place. It does not, however, negate the previous claims of a partnership between Saddam and Osama which was slyly presented to us by govt. personel on the nightly news during the build up of the invasion.kr@cker wrote:
your reading comprehension is convenient as well, it still does not say "Saddam orchestrated 9/11"
No, I just have links from a quick Yahoo search to back up my claim. Sorry that I did not have enough patience/will to stockpile news clippings about who said what and when it was said over the past 5 years or the wish to spend hours digging stuff up online. It eats into my pr0n time.kr@cker wrote:
so you've got the guardian, who has a habit of "accidentally omitting" portions of quotes
Last edited by MorbidFetus (2006-10-01 10:30:18)
Those actually have to pass a vote whereas one nation on the security council has a habit of repeatedly vetoing resolutions against Israel.kr@cker wrote:
and those un resolutions are suspiciously one sided, where are all the ones written to protect Israel? How about some implementing sanctions against Iran for sending rockets to Hezbollah? How about one that requires Hezbollah to disarm and quit targetting civilians/using civvy's for shields?
porn takes precedent over all