Author Topic: Nope - Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to the US (Read 1731 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #30 on:** May 10, 2003, 05:36:33 PM »

I recall the issue was one of non cooperation with Blix. I recall the argument was that if Iraq were to show inspectors evidence of it's compliance, the whole thing could have been done quickly.

Sort of like me, as an honest taxpayer, proving to the IRS that I payed my taxes correctly. It may be a pain, but logistically it is easy to do if one wants to do it.

If I were a cheat and I actively attempted to hide, mislead, lie, and obfuscate, it would take more time and effort on the IRS's part to show I was a cheat.

Sandman · « **Reply #31 on:** May 10, 2003, 05:40:12 PM »

Key difference is Bush wanted proof of the non-existence of WMD.

Flaw in the logic there.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #32 on:** May 10, 2003, 05:52:28 PM »

No, we (not just GWB) wanted proof of complaince. (don't forget the UN wanted it too.)

Show a credible paper trail of the weapons program, and destruction of chemical and biological weapons that were documented to exist by the UN, and it would have been easy to avert the destruction of his government.

Using my IRS analogy, the auditor says "show me the receipts for these business expenses." And then I show him. A credible paper trail is shown, and I stay out of trouble.

The argument is about how much time it takes to willingly cooperate.

Sandman · « **Reply #33 on:** May 10, 2003, 05:59:02 PM »

That's all nice and all... but Bush didn't choose to invade because Hussein was non-compliant. Bush decided to invade because Hussein was "a clear and immediate danger" or words to that effect.

Of course... that was before our army spent just 26 days waltzing across their country.

Some threat they turned out to be.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #34 on:** May 10, 2003, 06:17:35 PM »

My point is,...... if Iraq had been compliant within a few months after the first Gulf war, no wind in the sails of GWB.

Iraq would have been able to sell oil freely instead of UN mandated Oil-for-Food. No 12 years of hardship for the citizens of Iraq, no 1000 kids a week dying due to SH reactions to UN sanctions.

I wonder if Saddam ever made a good policy decision.

Sandman · « **Reply #35 on:** May 10, 2003, 06:30:06 PM »

Guess he wasn't planning on an illegal invasion...

He erred.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #36 on:** May 10, 2003, 06:30:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

I wonder if Saddam ever made a good policy decision.

Ask the USA hating leftists, he was the best leader for Iraq! If only that tryrant Bush and his evil father before him hadn't been so mean - it was all, naturally, America's fault....

Mini D · « **Reply #37 on:** May 10, 2003, 06:36:30 PM »

Sheeesh... enough of the "WMD" rhetoric.

Here's a synopsis for those who don't get it:

Saddam Hussein led Iraq invades a sovereign nation.
Coallition forces push his forces back into Iraq.
Saddam continues to spout off about the great satan.
Saddam ran Iraqi government offers rewards to suicide bombers in pallestine
Suicide "bombers" fly two jets into the world trade center and one into the Pentagon
Talliban officials dance in celebration
Iraq officials dance in celebration
Talliban destroyed
Iraq government destroyed
U.S. asks if anyone else wants to dance in celebration of 9/11

Anyone that is playing the "prove it" game with Saddam and state sponsored terrorism is being quite simply ignorant. The French have been hiding behind "prove it" for some time, the Russians just choose to because a) they don't feel anyone cared when state sponsered soldiers were in Chechnia and b) they want oil money.

The rest is just a facade to appease the "court of world oppinion". Everyone knows why we went in... and they just wanted a plausable excuse... not necessarily a good one.

MiniD

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #38 on:** May 10, 2003, 06:44:37 PM »

MiniD I feel your simplistic, black and white interpretation of 9/11 as a "bad" thing will offend many of the sensitive and nuanced "USA is always evil" crowd - care to rephrase your brutish thoughts in a more genteel manner?

Nash · « **Reply #39 on:** May 10, 2003, 08:50:55 PM »

Saddam ran Iraqi government offers rewards to suicide bombers in pallestine

followed by...

Suicide "bombers" fly two jets into the world trade center and one into the Pentagon

You're really trying to link these two things into some kind of cause and effect? I dunno man... That's a hell of a leap, even leaving out the fact that this reward stuff happened in March of last year, well after the WTC attack.

Mark me down as one of the people "that still don't get it."

Mini D · « **Reply #40 on:** May 10, 2003, 09:09:26 PM »

No need to mark anyone down for anything. Its readily apparent that some will choose not to get it.

Truth is, the only argument against is "Yeah... we know he may have had something to do with it, but PROVE it."

Nah... we don't need to. We know. You know. They know.

but... but... war is bad. And any excuse people can come up with to "prove" that war is bad is equally as rediculous.

America has a wide spread reputation as a paper tiger. We roll over whenever there is an act of agression against us because the polititians are too afraid of protesters. Sorry, but those days are gone. And those protestors that are now being ignored are the most pissed off of all.

I'll also laugh at anyone that even remotely tries to link 9/11 to the U.S. government and then turns around and criticizes the U.S. for any involvement in Iraq. Seems to be alot of that type of behavior going around these days. I mean... I doubt there's really a double standard or simply a desire to post contrary to what others are posting simply to be anti. Funny thing is... those doing it don't really see themselves as puppets. Thinking contrary to the masses is still letting the masses determine your train of thought.

MiniD

Nash · « **Reply #41 on:** May 10, 2003, 11:33:46 PM »

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the last paragraph. I think you're saying that you doubt that people are posting contrary replies just for the sake of being contrary or 'anti-'... and if so, I totally agree with you. Sure, there is the exception - on both sides. But what I see most often are people's positions dismissed simply because they're perceived to be 'anti' for no other reason than to be... well... anti. As if one couldn't possibly hold a substantive opposing view and actually mean it. There used to be regular healthy debate here. Now we quickly categorize the posts according to a perceived motive and file them away with the appropriate dismissive (or sarcastic) remark.

Heh... the days of 'political correctness' have got nothin' on what we're into these days. I don't know what you'd call it and I don't even know what it is, but I've got a feeling that in the years ahead when people look back to this time, the actual wars will be overshadowed by something else...

Now, as far as the first part of your post... the actual uh, points... When you start off by saying that unless I happen to agree with you "I choose not to get it"...

Why bother?

Mini D · « **Reply #42 on:** May 11, 2003, 12:03:06 AM »

I don't know nash.. why bother?

It really is as simple as I've listed above. You have to actually chose not to believe it based on... um... lack of sufficient evidence?

In leu of 9/11, the U.S. government sat down and decided what actually made someone a threat to the United States. Do you really believe that Saddam Hussein did not fit into virtually every category they came up with?

Man.. I can't fricking believe people are actually playing this stupid. Well... except for blitz.

MiniD

BGBMAW · « **Reply #43 on:** May 11, 2003, 03:47:57 AM »

Blitz like a few others ..very small few are still really morons..

Let them live in France..

DIE DIRBAGS DIE...(In virtual skies..DIEEEEE)

Love
BiGB
xoxo

( I think if these people think USA is so Wrong...go protest next to that bulldozer over there)

Nash · « **Reply #44 on:** May 11, 2003, 06:15:20 AM »

"It really is as simple as I've listed above. You have to actually chose not to believe it based on... um... lack of sufficient evidence?"

I don't think so.

Besides faith, there are a couple of ways you can come to believe in something. One way is to witness something or have something demonstrated to you. In that case there's no choosing to believe - what is, is what is (depending on your definition of is

). Another is having someone tell you something. In that case you must make a choice to believe it (based on the likelihood, the credibility of the source, etc.).

When you apply the above to your list and Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack, the only people making choices here are the people who want to believe that this connection exists. Some people have asked you to believe it and you chose to do so. Me? I'll believe it when I see it.

It's funny to me that we're constantly given these scraps of information... such as Hussein paying Palestinian suicide bombers... and finally that we must be going out of our way if we don't believe in Iraq's involvement. Nevermind that the hyjackers weren't Palestinian suicide bombers. Nevermind that Hussein rolled this thing out some 8 months after the WTC attack. To be frank, I think I'm being quite charitable with you over this Iraq/WTC business.

It's always the same thing though... Like I'm supposed to ignore the peices that don't fit and make these huge leaps of faith in the construction of a theory (because ladies and gentlemen, at this point that is all it is), or else I'm just being... anti-.... a pain in the arse... *choosing* not to believe. Deth to Amreeka.

You seem to be saying that in the Deja world of jurisprudence one needs only to come up with a theory, bolster it with unrelated events, and call it fact until proven otherwise; as the burden of proof now lies with those who'd dare not accept the charges outright. Futher, to not accept the charges is to be playing dumb. Not a whole lot of wiggle room, is there?

All that being said, why in the world would I or anyone actually go out of my way not to believe something? It doesn't make sense to me. If somethings there, if it's real - show me, I'll believe.... Why wouldn't I?