Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2006-03-17 11:10:01

PatMeebles said:

I'll answer Shadow when I have some time.

Cool, sounds good.

In the meantime, forgive me for jumping ahead to quickly answer a couple points...

PatMeebles said:

Uh, we gave him dual use chemicals. We've found dual use chemicals in Iraq since the Invasion. So if you say that we sold him WMD's in the 80's, then you have to believe that there were WMD's in Iraq before, during, and after our invasion.

Not necessarily. We sold him the potential for chemical WMD's, whether that potential was realized at any given time was also the results of several other factors, including Iraq's military strategy and economic concerns. After the first Gulf War and failed Kuwaiti invasion, Hussein's main concerns were preserving his grip on power despite economic sanctions and an embarassing military loss. Therefore, he had too full a plate domestically, particularly as the years went on and sanctions continued, for him to realistically consider external acts of aggression.

That's why I found the whole argument that he had WMD's in 2002 foolish, regardless of who said it, and why everyone in the UN was openly laughing at Colin Powell as he tried to present supposed evidence of such weapons.

PatMeebles said:

And we tried to help the Iraq people during sanctions by putting our trust into the UN to run a clean operation with Oil For Food. What a big mistake that was...

Agreed.

PatMeebles said:

And it's strange. You say that it's a good thing that Saddam's on trial, yet you were adamantly opposed to overthrowing him in the first place.

Sounds right to me. The fact that toppling Hussein opened the door for a worse scenario (fundamendalist Al Qaeda-sympathetic theocracy), meant no one could put him on trial without taking a foolish risk (as we ultimately did); however, everyone agrees the guy deserved to go on trial. Again, my viewpoint here is also that of George Bush Sr. and James Baker, who although believing that Saddam Hussein on trial is certainly a good thing, didn't think it was worth the risk to overthrow him.

[default homepage]

[print][

12:32:19pm Apr 27,2024
load time 0.00691 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]