Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama admin having to admit waterboarding worked?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
100 replies to this topic

#91 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,986 posts

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:06 PM

this war was more than the sum of its parts. The blatant and intentional disregard of proper intelligence and the opinions of the people most experienced in the region (among them those same inspectors) being the key to it all. If we're playing hypotheticals and getting into the minds of madmen lets try this: We both know that if Hussein had let the inspectors in that Bush would've found a reason to go in anyway. The writing was on the wall. To chalk the Iraq war up as an extension of anti-terror policy is a joke that has been played out to the nth degree.


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.

#92 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,345 posts

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:18 PM

He had chemical weapons. We know this because he used them in Iranians, and then on his own people who tried to start an uprising we said we would support but didn't.

From what I have seen, for some reason his ability to make them went away after the Gulf War. The stuff he had was cursed with a limited shelf life, and his ability to start up any programs were in fact, constantly thwarted by the UN inspectors, and for some reason he decided to use this to what he percieved as his advantage. By playing "poor Saddam" he hoped to convince the Arab nations that the West was being unfair to him - it's a ploy he'd used before but no one was buying it. The idea of having a real chemical weapons program was tossed aside for the illusion of him having one for some kind of political gamesmanship.

If in fact he destroyed anything, that means the invasion was not needed. If he hid them, there is no way I could believe that no one would have a clue where to look for them after all these years. The whole Syria thing has to be BS; no one gives their magic weapons to another country just because they are getting invaded, and someone in that country would have spilled the beans by now - or given them to Hamas or something. Saddam was a survivor and I bet that until that noose was around his neck he thought he was going to find a way out of his mess, and if he had any unused goodies, would have been wanting to use them somehow, so giving them away would have been a pretty big blunder.

#93 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:23 PM

He had chemical weapons. We know this because he used them in Iranians, and then on his own people who tried to start an uprising we said we would support but didn't.

From what I have seen, for some reason his ability to make them went away after the Gulf War. The stuff he had was cursed with a limited shelf life, and his ability to start up any programs were in fact, constantly thwarted by the UN inspectors, and for some reason he decided to use this to what he percieved as his advantage. By playing "poor Saddam" he hoped to convince the Arab nations that the West was being unfair to him - it's a ploy he'd used before but no one was buying it. The idea of having a real chemical weapons program was tossed aside for the illusion of him having one for some kind of political gamesmanship.

If in fact he destroyed anything, that means the invasion was not needed. If he hid them, there is no way I could believe that no one would have a clue where to look for them after all these years. The whole Syria thing has to be BS; no one gives their magic weapons to another country just because they are getting invaded, and someone in that country would have spilled the beans by now - or given them to Hamas or something. Saddam was a survivor and I bet that until that noose was around his neck he thought he was going to find a way out of his mess, and if he had any unused goodies, would have been wanting to use them somehow, so giving them away would have been a pretty big blunder.


You stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, didn't you?

#94 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,986 posts

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:24 PM

Clinton didn't seem to think his ability to make or use went away.
He even said, mark my words.
And why didn't Clinton really go the international route and put the onus back on the ME to take care of Saddam if there were some who really didn't like him?

98 the UN inspectors talked about Saddam not following the even more recent criteria for inspection. If ya got nothing to hide, big deal. Let em in. Was it a power play to his neighbors or was he buying time?

#95 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,345 posts

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:29 PM

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.

#96 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:32 PM

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.


You conveniently skipped my question. Question skipper.

#97 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:35 PM

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.

#98 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,986 posts

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:46 PM

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?

#99 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,345 posts

Posted 25 April 2009 - 09:47 AM

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....

#100 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,986 posts

Posted 25 April 2009 - 11:19 AM

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.

#101 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,046 posts

Posted 25 April 2009 - 11:28 AM

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.




Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com