The Liberal View of the WMD Controversy

[Walter]

Simply put, unless and until those in unelected power (such as Maddas, Hitler, etc.) voluntarily eschew violence (they certainly have no other reason to) we have two choices; defend ourselves against such potential violence or succumb.

I suppose you feel that we should succumb?

[Ironside]

Walter said:

Simply put, unless and until those in unelected power (such as Maddas, Hitler, etc.) voluntarily eschew violence (they certainly have no other reason to) we have two choices; defend ourselves against such potential violence or succumb.

I suppose you feel that we should succumb?

Succomb to what?

Are you suggesting Saddam Hussein wanted to take over the world, America included? ;D

Iraq was and has never been a threat to the mighty United States of America!

[Walter]

Succomb to what?

Any and all threats posed by megalomanaiacal dictators ranging from Maddas to Kim. The willingness of some to "negotiate" with these people represents a childlike innocence.

Are you suggesting Saddam Hussein wanted to take over the world, America included?

No. I'm saying that. See below.

Iraq was and has never been a threat to the mighty United States of America! [/i]

I see. So when Clinton said, "(i)f Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction." he felt that Saddam, (to quote you) "has never been a threat to the mighty United States of America." Click here for full story CNN, December 16, 1998

Can you please explain how Clinton felt they were a threat but you don't? Maybe you should give him a call to help him understand.

[Walter]

Here's another gentle soul who I'm sure Ironside would feel is fully amenable to quiet and reasonable negotiations. Read this very comforting article:"Jews rule the world: Mahathir"

(Mahathir, in case you don't know, is the Prime Minister of Malaysia.)

Maybe Jimmy Carter really did have it right. Maybe we should just let these dictators loose and hide in our defenseless Western Hemisphere.

Oops. Can't do that. We'd have to get prepared to deal with those who will take advantage of the opportunity the peace-nik Carter types provide and might try to "globalize" but using their concepts of government rather than ours.

Oops. Can't get prepared. Would violate our civil rights.

Guess we all just surrender to these megalomaniacs.

Right, Ironsides?

Once again...when will you and/or the 9 dwarfs propose legitimate alternatives? Ever?

[MO]

I don't think we'll ever be able to convince the pinko hand wringers. I'm afraid the appeasement crowd would like to ignore the danger in the world, for fear of making people angry. Wouldn't want to make any peaceful people angry!
They might try to fly jets into our buildings or blow up our ships or embassies.

[ItWillNeverWork]

If meglomaniacal dictators are such a threat then why is it that meglomaniacal dictators are funded, aided and supported by the US. For example the ruler of uzbeckistan who boils people alive. Or the saudi royals who chop heads off of people and opress women. Or maybe Pinochet who was the saviour of chilean democracy right? Or maybe even the former dictator of Iraq, what was his name now? ahh I remember Saddam, the man who was armed, funded aided and supported by the US even while he was gassing the kurds.

Now, what conclusion can we come to from this? It seems to me that the US didnt see Saddam as a threat to the US in the 1980's when he was at his strongest so to say he was a threat now after a decade of sanctions seems farsical. Maybe we went to war for humanitarian reasons? But then the fact remains that we gave saddam the chemicals he killed the kurds and we said not a word against him at the time. So what other reasons can there be? Maybe its just a coincidence that we only turned against saddam when he invaded our little oil supplying buddy Quwait but to me it seems pretty obvious.

In Gulf War 1 we were sold the story of Saddams evil (convieniently ignoring that we put the evil there) in order to protect the Quwaiti oil and preserve staibility in the markets

In Gulf War 2 we were fed lies about saddams direct threat tp out shores in order that our governments could privatise the oil fields and create more stability in the markets. Simple as.

[Walter]

So, therefore, what?

Because of this you feel Saddam is an OK kinda guy?

Make up your mind.

[ItWillNeverWork]

"Because of this you feel Saddam is an OK kinda guy?"

I thought I made the point pretty clear. Eighther you did not understand or you are choosing to twist what I said. Let me recap on a few things:

"convieniently ignoring that we put the evil there" - Would someone who thought Saddam was an 'Ok kinda guy' refer to him as evil? No.

The point i was making, and the point you knew I was making, was...

1) That whilst saddam was an evil man it was not this reason that we overthrhrew him (like our governments are now trying to convince us was the case). How do I know this? read my last post.

2) We did not invade Iraq because it posed a strategic threat to us. How do I know this? read my last post.

Please read my posts carefully and try not to spin what I say in an attempt to blacken my standpoint. Offer rational, logical and intelligent responses that oppose specifically the points I make. Then we can move on and make ground in the debate, you never know you may even convince me if you decide to argue you case in this manner.

[Walter]

Okay, I reread your post.

So, exactly, what is it you feel we should have done?

You're into blame. The issue is a threat.

Yes, Chamberlain was viewed as a hero and Churchill a war monger in the 30's. So what?

Get current. Blame - there's plenty to go around including especially the failures to maintain any intelligence capability throughout the 90's and the inability of the USA to take any decisive action during that period. So let's get back to the subject.

What exactly is your point?

[ItWillNeverWork]

"What exactly is your point?"

I thought it was searingly obvious. If we didnt go to war because of a serious military threat (which we can't have done because saddam was too weak and didnt even have any usable WMD's) and we didnt go to war because he was a monster towards the people of iraq (if our governments were so concerned about human rights they wouldnt support violators of those rights in other places around the world) then why exactly did we go to war?

So, the point I am making is that we really need to look closely at the causes of the iraq conflict and find out the truth.

[Walter]

Oh yes. Sorry. I forgot how short memories can be.

Do you remember the unconditional surrender that Saddam signed in 1991?

Do you remember the 14 resolutions by the UN, the last being U. N. Security Council Resolution 1441?

Now go back and look at the first post and explain to me, again, what you consider to be so "searingly obvious" because, like the 15 members of the Security Council and most of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, your "searingly obvious point is lost on us dummies.

Again, if you are in possession of better information than anyone else, perhaps you should be a bit civic minded and pass that information along to Kofi Anan (I know you don't like GWB) so he can get up to date.

[Psychodoc]

GW is a man of simple psychology.... or maybe just simple!
He figured after 9/11 that he had to do something to secure his status and future recognition after the debacle of the electoral defeat that he managed to have turned into a victory.
He couldn't find Ben Ladle, so responded to the pressure from the Israelies who felt Soddom was sponsoring suicide bombers, and his own wealthy firends desire to control more of the worlds oilfields. He decided (or was advised), that if he could turn Iraq into the greatest threat to world peace since his parents got it on, then kick crap out of them on the basis that otherwise Soddom may let his Wombats of Moose Destraction fall into the hands of international terrorists or dictators (that is appart from those already sponsored and supported by the US), then his future place in history as saviour of the US and the world would be secured.

There was the added bonus that it would be a catchweight contest with an easy take down.

The fact that neither moose nor wombats are native to Iraq did not concern him he could always find or create some evidence that Iraqi agents had been scouring the worlds Zoos seeking to buy some.

The reason that no exit strategy was planned post conflict is because he felt that he owed the profits generated by the war to the same unhinged bastions of venture capitalism and free enterprise that had secured him the presidency and who always resented the fact that God had seen to dump more oil under the feet of carpet hugging muslim towel heads than decent God fearing American christians.

Not for a man that can't even speak English properly and looks like a demented feret on acid to get involved in that sort of business. No, the backhanders, automatic re-election and the prospect of bathing in vainglorious narcissism over the glowing reports of his presidency in years to come would be just fine as a reward for him. After all it would allow him to stick it to Bush senior too!

If it all went pear shaped he could blame it all on Tony Blair and the defective British intelligence reports and dosier.

It also had the sweet bonus of stoking up the fires of christian vs muslim conflict and therefore terrorism for years to come. this would provide him with something to lash out at whenever the US population started to wonder what kind of idiot was actually running the country.

As for Tony Blair, at some point after winning Labours greatest election victory in modern history, he appeared to have a bizarre colonic irrigation injury whereby all the natural socialist instincts were washed out of him like fragments of crapulous debris and was then unfortunately, sucked so far up his own arse that he no longer has any ability to percieve the real world and now lives in a self generated delusional state where he believes he is the president of the UK for life. (Patronising smile, slight shrug of the shoulders and fleeting thought that if the monarchy really implodes he could maybe wangle himself in as King. Some reservations about Ewan as Prince of Wales though!).

Oh well back to work!
;D

[MO]

First of all, there was no electoral defeat for President Bush to worry about. He won according to the laws of the Constitution. If you wish to beat that dead horse, start a new thread about it. Don't hijack this one!

The fact that we have not successfully captured bin laden is not the Presidents personal failure. It took law enforcement officials more than five years to find someone who was hiding in the woods in this country. If Clinton had seized one of the opportunities to take him down, perhaps 9-11 would have never happened.

A coalition of most of NATO and over two dozen countries was NOT convinced to go to war to help Israel. Most of Europe and most liberals in the US are more anti Semitic now than before the second world war. But I suppose, like most liberals, that you are narcissistic enough to believe that you have been given enough security information to make these ridiculous assertions.

I could go on point by point by I don't think it's worth it. Obviously, just another troll. Your baseless allegations are certainly troll like. The enemy wants you dead, too! Even if you are a liberal who is rooting for them.

[Psychodoc]

The election was hilarious from this side of the pond but oK we'll let uncounted ballots lie.
If the president knew it takes 5 years to find someone in the woods how the hell can he hope to ever catch or curtail the activities of global terrorists. either he is a dunce or the war on terror and the one against Iraq has more to do with his electoral and political standing than preserving the safety of the average US citizen.
Also remember that it was the US that sponsored and supported both Bin Ladin and Saddam in the past.
Most countries that joined the war on Iraq would not have done so at the time if the US had not insisted on starting it and would have waited for further UN approval or left more time for inspections.
They joined in so as not to lose favour with the US which wields enormous economic power on the world stage.
What was it put the US in such an all consuming rush to arms?
Perhaps you can explain that to me?
A far as anti-scemitism is concerned I have nothing against Jews, however I feel the Israelis by there actions over the past few years have done more to keep their conflict going than to resolve it and are to a degree eroding the balance of post holocaust sympathy that was ernestly felt for them after WW2.
Lastly I have no security information just a healthy amount of cynicism and informed skepticism.

[MO]

There is a poster on this board from your side of the pond who understands our Constitution enough to grasp the election outcome. Not everyone on your side of the pond is so critical and uninformed.

The president does not know how long it will take to capture an elusive and dangerous mad man, foreign or domestic. That doesn't mean we should spend another decade ignoring terrorist attacks and only going after religious nuts on a misdemeanor gun charge and six year old kids. Appeasement brought us to 9-11. It would be nice to capture or kill bin laden, but he's almost as good as dead being on the run.

The UN has proved irrelevant. They are a bunch of thugs dressed up like statesmen. We will not give up our national sovereignty to those apes.

The only thing Israel has done since 1948 is defend her continued existence.