Originally posted by GScholz
No Google search is necessary, I know very well that the US is a major contributor to both the UN and private aid organizations. I think we differ only in our preferred methods of peacemaking.
agreed
Originally posted by GScholz
"To no avail" is downright false. For 12 years Iraq was contained, and the UN sanctions did limit Hussein's ambitions greatly. Why do you think oil rich Iraq was defeated so easily after 12 years since the last war? Un containment.
The suffering of the people from the UN sanctions was ok with you?
I think his military for the most part did not want to fight for him (with some exceptions)
Originally posted by GScholz
Nothing is that easy in the real world. Hussein was walking a tight rope, both with the UN and with the Middle East. Iraq is surrounded by hostile nations that do have WMD, for him to openly declare that Iraq was defenseless could have been suicidal. By allowing the UN to inspect his country to such a degree that the UN, although not finding anything, would not be completely sure that he didn't have WMD was the only defense he could muster. Hussein played a game of perceived strength, yet innocence ... and lost both.[/B]
Iraq had nothing to fear from other hostile nations, only in the mind of SH would this be true.
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't think I've said that your President has lied, although I'm sure he does, like any high level politician. The definition of a lie is a tricky one, especially in politics. Did he lie or was he merely misinformed or selective of the truth? I do believe that Iraq destroyed its WMD, and the last UN inspections by Blix before the war supports that conclusion. That Hussein bluffed to ward off real or perceived threats to his regime is another thing.[/B]
I do not believe Iraq destroyed its weapons Blix would not go on the record before the war to state this. Easy to make statements after the play about the play.
Originally posted by GScholz
Let me ask you this; do you believe that any US President, especially a first term one, would be so eager to send US troops to invade a country that has proven its willingness to use WMD in battle ... if he believed that the country still had them?[/B]
YES
Why do you think we put out the warnings not to use them and equipped our troops as we did.
Originally posted by GScholz
I believe I have done that.[/B]
you may believe in anything you want to
Originally posted by GScholz
Ditto.[/B]
Ditto
Originally posted by GScholz
Neighter.[/B]
This says a lot about you and continuing the discussion
Originally posted by GScholz
Neither or both, depending on the situation.[/B]
Ditto see above
Originally posted by GScholz
Neither. (I don't believe the US "evidence" that he had them, and I don't believe Hussein's bluff of having them)[/B]
Originally posted by GScholz
The Iraqis deserve what they make for them selves, and they are not a free nation yet. Time will tell if they ever will be free, I have a sneaking suspicion that if Iraq becomes truly democratic it will only last a very short time. In the end Iraq may become an Islamic theocracy perhaps even more oppressive than the secular Baath regime, and certainly a bigger threat to the Middle East and the world.[/B]
Many Nations came to be with the support and help of another, most nations in fact. Yes time will tell and in the end it may not really matter in the least, I hope to be gone by then.
Originally posted by GScholz
That is beyond dispute. [/B]
Thanks for the interesting point of view, I have enjoyed the talk.
