Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Obama admin having to admit waterboarding worked?

101 posts in this topic

Posted

that is a MUCH farther leap than what Im saying. Albeit insanely cynical.

Even in 1998 the song and dance was on.

Either Hussien NEVER had WMD. He had them and just used them a lil bit. Had them and hid them. Or both Clinton and W and both groups of congress LIED thru their teeth.

I'm curious to this question. Is it to hard to imagine Saddam had WMD and actually hid or destroyed what he had? I mean he is a bad guy but not a liar.

it's doubtful. Our military carved up Iraq extremely efficiently and the odds that they were able to destroy the infrastructure which they would've needed to build said weapons leaving behind no trace are poor. Clinton busted his ass to contain the conflict, enforce UN rules and avoid full scale intervention. The subsequent administration came in and immediately starting banging the drum.

Of course Hussein had weapons at some point, I was honestly surprised we didn't find any. My anger is in the fact that Saddam was never a threat to the US, Reagan and Bush made sure of that. Saddam's role as a legitimate threat to US SAFETY, not interests (literal safety was the point that was argued.) was never put to task by the administration and those who did question it were shouted down as unamerican. My anger is not with the war, or war itself but how casual and offhand it was. Clinton treated Hussein as the threat he actually was.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Wolfowitz's defense memos on preemptive intervention matter, Cheney's 1% doctrine matters, to say that my argument is "insanely cynical" is to ignore the paper trail that came from the members of the bush administration since the early 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1. Clinton never felt it was the US' job to "liberate" Iraq. And he could have been right - but he never, ever felt the US was threatened by Iraq to the point that invasion was considered.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

2. The Arab world was not interested in taking over this job, and the US was not interested in trusting them to do it.

3. I explained all that. Buying time? Probably not - IMHO it was a power struggle against the West he just wanted to win, like a 3 year old arguing over eating their dinner. Definitely the idea of him having some wonder weapons would help other local nations be dissuaded from trying to take over his oil fields. Since he didn't really have an army left, it was kind of his only option that made sense.

Last two are opinions more or less.

I like the way you have downplayed WMD twice. Magic and wonder weapons.

So in your mind these weapons are like Santa Clause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, if you stop believing in them, they are no longer true, the military can track both of them as they make their way to the US but civilians can't see them, and when you get to where they are supposed to live, you can't find anything....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So for 15 years between the UN, countless inspectors, other nations being involved with communicating in Iraq and abroad and who knows how many US officials, senators, and TWO Presidents just made all this up?

I guess I need to starting smoking pot again to understand your logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1. Clinton never felt it was the US' job to "liberate" Iraq. And he could have been right - but he never, ever felt the US was threatened by Iraq to the point that invasion was considered.

2. The Arab world was not interested in taking over this job, and the US was not interested in trusting them to do it.

3. I explained all that. Buying time? Probably not - IMHO it was a power struggle against the West he just wanted to win, like a 3 year old arguing over eating their dinner. Definitely the idea of him having some wonder weapons would help other local nations be dissuaded from trying to take over his oil fields. Since he didn't really have an army left, it was kind of his only option that made sense.

But Clinton did offer support for the attack once it occurred, and blamed much of the problem on Russia and France's threatened veto of UN resolution.

Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum. Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.

The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It's too bad, because if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion and he still might have disarmed without invasion and bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and depose him.

A s Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.

In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites