[DaveB]

Interesting. They appear to have offered almost everything we publically said we wanted.

From http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/hage031105-1.html

...Imad Hage, the president of the American Underwriters Group insurance company and known in the region as having contacts at the Pentagon, told ABCNEWS he was first approached by an Iraqi intelligence official who arrived unannounced at his office in Beirut.

A week later, according to Hage, he and an associate were asked to come to Baghdad, when Hage says he met with Saddam Hussein's chief of intelligence, Gen. Tahir Habbush, later labeled the Jack of Diamonds in the deck of cards depicting the most-wanted members of Saddam Hussein's regime. Habbush is still at large.

"He was conveying a message," said Hage. "He was conveying an offer." Hage said Habbush laid out terms of a negotiated peace during a four-hour session beginning at midnight at a compound in Baghdad.

Hage said Habbush repeated public denials by the regime that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but offered to allow several thousand U.S. agents or scientists free rein in the country to carry out inspections. "Based on my meeting with his man," said Hage, "I think an effort was there to avert war. They were prepared to meet with high-ranking U.S. officials."

Hage said Habbush also offered U.N.-supervised free elections, oil concessions to U.S. companies and was prepared to turn over a top al Qaeda terrorist, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who Haboush said had been in Iraqi custody since 1994...

db

[Langenator]

Uh huh. And we had what reasons to believe anything that lying sack of excrement said? He'd been lying, obfuscating, and giving the world the run-around for 12 years, and suddenly he's believable?

Are you interested, perhaps, in purchasing a slightly used bridge?

[DaveB]

He'd been lying, obfuscating, and giving the world the run-around for 12 years, and suddenly he's believable?

Maybe so. It seems to me that our admin had an obligation to at least hear them out - they might have saved some lives.

db

[FPrice]

Langenator has summed it up very well. Hussein had a knack for seeming to offer a compromise at the right time to forestall any serious action. And it always worked. And he always went back on any agreement.

Up until Bush 43.

[Gary H]

and President Bush..while we are at it..we want you to negotiate another fine agreement with North Korea.

[Lone_Gunman]

Saddam lied for years.

The idea he suddenly became sincere and honest is very very very very very stupid.

[hops]

Big Deal. In WWII the U.S. declined oppertunities to end that war early, but if your terms are 'unconditional surrender' the other guy will fight to the very bitter end and spill as much of your blood as he can - and did.

Sadam Insane and Co. were just playing games as usual. But then, what ever it takes to win and take the WH in 2004 for the demos... Just win baby, right???

[Mute]

You mean we didn't believe them when they offered us the same thing they had offered the UN all those years and then reneged on? Shame on us. :rolleyes:

[DaveB]

Y'know something LoneGunman? I'm not stupid.

This is not some fraternity initiation prank, and it's not a football game, and it's not the movies.

War is the most serious thing a government can do, because it gets people dead - ours and theirs.

Anything a government can do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done. It's government's primary obligation - defense - I read it here daily. The best defense is to keep your soldiers in their barracks until there's no other option. Fighting is the last resort.

If the Iraqis agreed to terms, it means that they surrendered.

If they surrendered, there was no reason to invade.

db

[cordex]

If Iraq was truly willing to concede to all of these terms, all they had to do was make a general, public announcement stating that they were ready to do so.

It is very hard to support a war against someone who has truly surrendered.

But they didn't. They fought, and they continued a misinformation campaign so obviously false it was laughable.

All it would have taken is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf standing in front of the cameras and saying: "Look folks, we give up. Sorry for the misunderstanding. We're willing to stand down now and let you do as you will." And then follow through.

Wait a second ... we should believe al-Sahaf about anything? Hmm ... maybe they should have put someone else up there instead.

[DaveB]

If Iraq was truly willing to concede to all of these terms, all they had to do was make a general, public announcement stating that they were ready to do so.

Why?

db

[Mike Irwin]

"Anything a government can do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done. It's government's primary obligation - defense - I read it here daily. The best defense is to keep your soldiers in their barracks until there's no other option. Fighting is the last resort."


Funny...

That's how World War II was ASSURRED of occurring. By desparate attempts to avoid, at all costs, going to war.

[cordex]

Why?
To garner international support.

To survive.

[DaveB]

Cordex, the point of my question was: why is a public statement necessary?

Is it not enough to have a formal agreement between governments - if you get what you want?

If Iraq subsequently refuses to do what was agreed to, then you attack.

That's how World War II was ASSURRED of occurring. By desparate attempts to avoid, at all costs, going to war.

No. WWII was assured by the invasion of Poland and by the invasion of China. Agressive war with Germany and Japan as the agressors.

Hmmm. Who's the agressor now?

db

[FPrice]

"Y'know something LoneGunman? I'm not stupid."

Lone_Gunman did NOT call anyone stupid. He correctly identified an idea as stupid. A completely different situation.

"The best defense is to keep your soldiers in their barracks until there's no other option."

History has proven this idea to be stupid also. Soldiers in their barracks can do nothing to provide a defense. Soldiers deployed can provide a defense, and be utilized as soon as necessary.

[Mike Irwin]

"No. WWII was assured by the invasion of Poland and by the invasion of China. Agressive war with Germany and Japan as the agressors.

Hmmm. Who's the agressor now?"

Nice try, but incorrect.

Had Britain and France showed spine with Germany, instead of showing that they were unwilling to do anything to resist Hitler's demands, war in Europe could have very likely been avoided.

Germany's invasion of Poland wasn't an isolated, spur of the moment decision, with no lead up.

Hitler himself wrote that he was so surprised by France and Britain's lack of assistance to Czechoslovakia that it gave him the assurances he needed to simply skip diplomatic demands and simply invade Poland.

The point is that at some point military action must always be reserved as a viable option.

[DaveB]

Soldiers deployed can provide a defense, and be utilized as soon as necessary

They provide a defense, sure, but they are much more persuasive as a hammer - poised and ready.

I completely agree with you: that's what we were doing up until the point at which we moved into Iraq. The question is: was the invasion necessary.

Too many responses...

The point is that at some point military action must always be reserved as a viable option.

Of course.

db

[Lone_Gunman]

DaveB

Why do you believe this report?

Why do you believe that Saddam was serious, this time, despite the fact that he has lied every other time?

At some point, the lies have to end, and this was as good a time as any as far as I am concerned. I have no doubt that this was a delay tactic on Saddam's part.

Anything a government can do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done.

Do you really believe that? Should appeasement be granted at the cost of everything else?

We certainly could have avoided fighting Nazi Germany, until they invaded us too I guess, but I don't think that would have been the right thing to do. I dont think going to war is the worst thing a government could do.

[Obiwan]

All the Iraquis had to do to surrender was wave American flags.

Instead of shooting.

Sorry...but this sounds too much like some Bozo trying to be famous by saying "I could have stopped the war"

[DaveB]

I didn't say the war was the worst thing - I said it was the most serious.

Use of WWII as a model for BushII doesn't fly. The axis was well on the way to controling much of europe and asia, and was an obvious threat to the US. Our allies were under attack. Our economic security was threatened.

I do not believe that Iraq was a threat to us, or to its neighbors, especially after BushI and years of sanctions . Saddam's "Wanting" WMDs is not cause for war.

The bottom line is this: if this report is true, and they were trying to surrender prior to the invasion, we should have at least met with them and explained very patiently, using only small words, that if they were again stalling, or jerking us around, we would invade their country, kill their armed forces, and hang their government.

I'm willing to listen to any facts out there - suppositions and whatIfs don't qualify.

db

[cordex]

I'm willing to listen to any facts out there - suppositions and whatIfs don't qualify.
Unless they back your position, right?
"What if Saddam was really and truly serious this time?"
"Just supposing that this insurance salesman could have arranged a meeting between Bush and Saddam ... might they not have been able to arrange a happy puppy kitten truce?"

[DaveB]

I wonder if the families of the soldiers that have died there would think your post was funny.

db

[Master Blaster]

The Democrats are desparate, any lie will do.

There is of course no way to verify this story. Would this pass FACT checking muster at any real news agency? I doubt it very much.

Sadaam had a phone and knew the UN phone number right?

He also had our number as well.

He was offered exile.

The part about them agreeing to free elections makes me want to laugh.

This is nonsense pure and simple.

[Lone_Gunman]

DaveB,

Ok, lets say we had met with Saddam, and he agreed to some terms that would have prevented the war.

But then 6 months later, he broke his word, as he has done so many times before.

Would you go to war at that point?

[DaveB]

Already replied to that:

(Quoting myself): "The bottom line is this: if this report is true, and they were trying to surrender prior to the invasion, we should have at least met with them and explained very patiently, using only small words, that if they were again stalling, or jerking us around, we would invade their country, kill their armed forces, and hang their government."

Clear enough?

db

[cordex]

I wonder if the families of the soldiers that have died there would think your post was funny.
My post was not intended to make the families of dead soldiers laugh.
My post was intended to address the hypocrisy evident in your position. To clarify, you reject "what if's" from anyone who disagrees with you, but you embrace them when they might support your position. This is demonstrated by this entire topic.
Instead of address that point, though, you chose to try to play the emotion card to support your position. No better than an anti-gunner squealing about "I wonder if the families of dead babies murdered with assault guns would think you are a comedian because of that 'drive by bayonetting' crack."

That you are resorting to this is very telling.

[ojibweindian]

Why would Hussien's administration convey a message to the Bush Administration through a "prominent Lebanese American businessman" rather than an administration or UN official?

And, why would we want to start believing a guy who had been feeding us a load of crap for over a decade?

Hussein could have avoided all this if he had fully co-operated with the UN concerning the inspections specified in the cease-fire agreement we had with Iraq since 1991.

[DaveB]

Cordex:

BS. I cited an article from ABC news to the effect that Iraq tried to surrender to us before we invaded. I made no judgement as to its veracity, I just asked:

if it were true, what was our justification for invasion?

Smart*ss remarks about kitties and puppies add nothing to the discussion.

What were my suppositions? My whatIfs were in the article. Where's my hypocrisy?

Perhaps you should respond to what I wrote, not what you imagine I meant.

db

[cordex]

Smart*ss remarks about kitties and puppies add nothing to the discussion.
You're right.
My whatIfs were in the article. Where's my hypocrisy?
Doesn't matter where they were. You cited a giant "What if ..." as the basis for the entire conversation and then go on to state: "I'm willing to listen to any facts out there - suppositions and whatIfs don't qualify."

Still don't see it?

[buzz_knox]

Hage said Habbush also offered U.N.-supervised free elections, oil concessions to U.S. companies and was prepared to turn over a top al Qaeda terrorist, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who Haboush said had been in Iraqi custody since 1994...

This is enough to tell me it's a lie. Anyone really think Sodom Insane would have agreed to "free elections"? Get real!

[ojibweindian]

As an aside, shouldn't the title actually read "Iraq declined opportunity to avoid war"? After all, Hussein would most likely still be around if he had fully cooperated with weapon inspectors.

He tried bluffing, and it worked while good ole Billy-Bob Clinton was in office because cowards are easy to bluff. Unfortunately for Hussein, the new guy in the White House actually has a pair; Bush called.

[hops]

The US declined many opportunities to avoid war with Iraq. So what? Sadam failed to meet the terms set by the U.S. The only thing I will really fault Pres. Bush on is that he beat the war drums against Iraq in public. After seeing the circus on CNN for 3 months, I knew war with Iraq was inevitable, short of Sadam and Co. hosting a global pay-per-view event of their self-immolation, Buddist style. Once one raises the stakes openly like Bush did, there is no turning back. Otherwise, one loses a hell of a lot of points in the international prestige scene.

Sadam was bluffing, Bush called him, after the last reraise in the hand, and Bush held aces over queens. Sadam's pair of 8's and Kings's just did not hold up. Sadam did bluff good enough to convince the CIA that he had WMD's, but one problem with intelligence is that you tend to find what you look for. Often you do not find what you looked for until after the fact.

The never ending WWII references to Iraq, are off line. Besides, if WWII was fought to preserve the 1918 border integrity of Poland, it was fought for naught. Last I remember, Russia still holds their Sept. 1939 Polish territorial acquisition. I'm sure Poles would like to see those lands returned. In fact, based upon Polish actions around, 1920-1922 or so, they'd like the return of Polish lands that once streched south to Odessa on the Black Sea, as far east as Kiev and Minsk (perhaps as far as Smloensk) and as far north as Riga. All countries have a 'manifest destiny', not all countries can enforce it.

[Lone_Gunman]

DaveB:

So you would have given Saddam one more chance?

So if he broke his word again after that you would go to war. Hmm... what if right before you invade him, he asks for one more last chance? Says he will do anything to avoid a war. Will you give him another last chance?

The point is, eventually everyone runs out of last chances.

[JohnBT]

"Anything a government can do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done."

Anything?

Are you serious?

Try thinking this through again, please.

John

[DaveB]

"Anything a government can do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done."

How about

"Anything a government can reasonably do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done."

The other posts here make my opinion pretty clear - go to war if it's necessary, not otherwise.

db

[Obiwan]

Dave B...we read what you wrote...did you???????

"BS. I cited an article from ABC news to the effect that Iraq tried to surrender to us before we invaded. I made no judgement as to its veracity, I just asked: if it were true, what was our justification for invasion?"


No...actually, what you said was;


"Interesting. They appear to have offered almost everything we publically said we wanted"

If this is true, maybe you should approach someone in Iraq and arrange our surrender.....you have as much right as some insurance guy:D

[Lone_Gunman]

DaveB:

How many last chances does Saddam get?

When would you draw the line?

[DaveB]

Assume that this story is true.

If it never happened, delete this thread.

Back channel communications are common among unfriendly governments - the fact that the guy in the middle here is an insurance salesman in no way makes this story implausable. It is interesting how many reject the possibility that this was real out of hand - please study some history.

Yes, there's a problem with giving multiple second chances, if that's what it was. As far as I can determine, we weren't really there - as far as Iraq Vs. USA. There was only one time we had troops poised to go in. He screws up, we kill him. What's the rush - do you have some more pressing appointment later?

In any case, that's beside the point, which was: why didn't we even agree to talk?

Many have said: well, we know he's lying. Sorry, you know no such thing.

A suggestion: if the guys that know (without having to prove it) that he's lying can read minds (they obviously can), they should call up Rummy and tell him where the thousands of tons of CBWs are buried.

db

[ojibweindian]

12 years of begging for Hussein to comply with the cease fire agreements is enough.

Hussein had his chances, and he blew it. Get it through your head, DaveB, the U.S. is not the bad guy.

[grampster]

Terrorists and terrorist supportive governments are like the tentacles of an evil octopuss. The critter is not put down until it has no tentacles left. Go back and carefully anylize the last 20 years leading up to 9/11. Then understand 9/11 changed everything in three ways; it clearly defined the history of everything that led up to it, clearly identified the enemy, and it was an attack on our soil. As a result we are at war with the evil apostate Wahabist muslims world wide and the evil secular middle eastern culture that despises the West. Saddam and Iraq is an arm of that octopuss and even the UN recognized that. This is a battle of good vs evil as defined by human terms.

There are no "what ifs" regarding Iraq. Iraq's position as a part of the problem is clearly defined and understandable by clear minded folks who recognize evil. If you are a left leaning "can't we all just get along" blissninny, trying to explain what is clear is nearly impossible and it shows daily in the news, in conversations and even here on THR.

After years of covering our eyes to terror, the time has come to stamp it out. It will not be easy, it will be time consuming and it will extract an awful price. Evil triumphs when good men stand by and do nothing.
Pull your head out of the sand Daveb. The people in charge of our nation understand this awful truth and have shouldered the awful burden. We should at least recognize that burden and not continue to give aid and comfort to those who hate us and would kill us by distorting what is trying to be done by not coming to grips with reality.

:banghead:

[ARperson]

if it were true, what was our justification for invasion?

Plenty. Bush never went to war on the threat of an "imminent attack" from SH. He went to war to prevent the threat from becoming imminent. Good enough in my book, especially considering SH's history of lies and deceit.

Moreover, while I do not advocate using the U.S. military as a world police force, I believe that we have an obligation to stamp out tyranny and despots, particularly when said individuals are killing millions of people. Even if SH had agreed to all the inspection/weapon/military terms, there is the undeniable fact that people would have still suffered horrendously under his reign.

Also, there can be no doubt that he failed to live up to the terms of the first surrender, which in my book in grounds for adding a state to the union. I'm a firm believer in the "to the victor go the spoils" philosophy. But that's neither here nor there. Back to the argument, he violated his own agreement, and by those terms was subject to whatever rained down on him.


And finally, though not the least of my arguments, there comes a time when you stop throwing gloves on the ground and start throwing the punches. Like a mother who makes idle threats time and again and has nothing but a brat to show for it, all this posturing by the U.S. and the U.N. regarding SH's compliance with demands was teaching him nothing less than that he could actually get away with it. Hitler's Germany all over again.

There are other reasons, but those are the biggest and most immediate.

[Lone_Gunman]

What's the rush - do you have some more pressing appointment later?

DaveB, the longer we have troops in the Mid East, whether it was before or after the war, the longer that are at risk of guerilla/terrorist type attacks, and the longer Saddam has to prepare his defenses, and plan for his own escape.

Who knows what the resistance to our troops would have been like if the attack had come later?

Ojibweindian is making the fundamental point you should not forget... The US is not the bad guy in this situation.

[w4rma]

Bush lied to con America into occupying Iraq.
He has found no WMDs.
He has found no Saddam.

More importantly, he has found no Osama bin Forgotten.

Bush has been and will continue to be a miserable failure. He must be put out to pasture in 2004.

The First Republican Debate
Posted Friday, Oct. 22, 1999, at 6:45 PM PT
…
Orrin Hatch

was running for vice president. Hatch takes every opportunity to praise his rivals, yielding time to his distinguished colleagues as if they were all in the Senate. Mainly, though, he praised himself, constantly reminding viewers of the many important committees he has served on. Hatch also took credit for just about everything significant Ronald Reagan did as president. "Frankly, if you look at it, we've had an unprecedented economic expansion over the last number of years. It's been primarily because Reagan got marginal tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent by 1986," he said. "I was one of a handful who convinced him that should be done." More extraordinary was Hatch's claim that he was the guy who talked Reagan into winning the Cold War. "I was the one who convinced Reagan we should give the Stinger missile to the Mujahadeen," Hatch said, "now called one of four reasons why the Cold War came down." I'd give Hatch the Admiral Stockdale Prize in the debate--the prize for having no idea why you're there.
http://slate.msn.com/id/1003872

Who is Osama Bin Laden?
…
When he returned he collected money and supplies for the Afghan resistance, the mujahideen.
…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm

[Lennyjoe]

:rolleyes:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Interesting discussion on Democracy Now tonight about this. About a month ago, Dick Cheny went on some talk show and cited the presence of Abdul Rahman Yasin as evidence that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. It turns out that Iraq tried to turn him over to the US twice before this last-minute deal. Once to Clinton, and once to Bush after 9/11. Both, now apparent all three, times he was turned down. It's almost as if the US government is lying, or something, about it's desire to capture him. Though he's on the FBI Most Wanted list, he didn't even rate a place in the infamous card deck. Fishy.

[buzz_knox]

You slam Bush yet provide information on Orrin Hatch. Get real.

As for assisting the Mujah, duh! Old news. What may be new to you is that bogging the Sovs down in Afghanistan and forcing them to expend resources was one of the ways Reagan helped take their entire system down.

Get your information from somewhere other than Democratic Underground.

[Obiwan]

I saw in the paper today that the insurance guy has political aspirations and has not been real succesful so far:scrutiny:

Could it be he is trying to enhance his chances:confused:

Just as important as whether it happened is how credible the offer really was.

Hussein killed his own credibility by constantly lying, delaying ...nobody should be surprised that something like this would not be taken seriously.

Unless that person has another agenda...hmmmmmm:scrutiny:

[FPrice]

Let's face it. There are some people who will, for whatever reason, refuse to believe that this war was necessary and will do all they can "try" to prove that we were lied to, duped, led astray by a group of Haliburton officials who replaced Bush with an alien clone, etc., etc., etc. No matter what arguement or proof you offer they will deflect it with some story or "what if...".

They cannot bring themselves to admit that just maybe we were right and Iraq was wrong.

[Gary H]

Bush has been and will continue to be a miserable failure. He must be put out to pasture in 2004.

If failure means that we fight in the Middle East and effect some shift to Democracy in the region, then so be it. That is the only long term solution to our problems with Osama and his mama.

If failure means that we fight on foreign soil and haven't been attacked at home for over two years, then give me failure, or give me death.

I'm sure that our lack of attacks on our soil will not continue forever, but I personally know folks that are out there making sure that terrorist don't wake up and I'm not talking about in the U.S., or in the Middle East. These folks have not forgotten 911 and have given up much in their hunt for Osama and his cohorts. Their wives stay at home and worry that they will never see their courageous man again. These are folks that will never be recognized. ABC will never use their deaths to promote their agenda and you will never soil their names with your remarks.

You insult many people that work to protect the U.S. I'm sure glad that your views are in the minority.

[DaveB]

You insult many people that work to protect the U.S.

The insult is in sending our own soldiers to die in the middle east under false pretenses.

The people who ARE working to protect us were ignored and overruled in the runup to this war.

I'm sure glad that your views are in the minority.

We'll see.

db

[CMichael]

Bush lied to con America into occupying Iraq.

I have a question, since the US hasn't yet found Saddam or UBL does that mean they never existed?

[buzz_knox]

I have a question, since the US hasn't yet found Saddam or UBL does that mean they never existed?

Best come back yet, and an excellent point to boot.

[bountyhunter]

Uh huh. And we had what reasons to believe anything that lying sack of excrement said? He'd been lying, obfuscating, and giving the world the run-around for 12 years, and suddenly he's believable?

A fair question: the answer is, he was running a bluff to the last minute and then caved in. There is no doubt he wanted to bail out and save his sorry @$$.

But, as to the question of liars, it raises a more relevant one:

Donald Rumsfeld made a famous speech in which he said:

"The American people can rest assured that we did everything possible to avoid this war."

Which was a lie. They did everything possible to ENSURE the war happened. The reason was that the war was never about compliance with a resolution, it was about killing Saddam Hussein for two very big reasons:

1) Texas Justice. That SOB put a hit out on GWB's daddy and that meant he had to die.

2) Make an example. We have been getting bent over the table on oil prices for decades, and a little gunboat diplomacy looked like a real good idea to the administration.

Those are the realities of it, and all the rest is just politics.

[buzz_knox]

There is no doubt he wanted to bail out and save his sorry @$$.

Interesting. This completely contradicts his deputy prime minister, Aziz, who has stated that Hussein fully believed that France and Russia would prevent any invasion and that even if there was a military assault, all he would have to do is ride it out until the US gave up, ala the air campaign in the Balkans. So we have his closest advisor saying Hussein never intended on capitulating, and we have you and others saying he knew the game was up.

[bountyhunter]

I have a question, since the US hasn't yet found Saddam or UBL does that mean they never existed?



Best come back yet, and an excellent point to boot.

That violates so many rules of logic that it may be an all-time record for the Guinness Book.

But, at least it shows why there is no hope the Bush lovers will ever see the truth.

Last time I checked, the "nuclear facilities" we had satellite photos of at the UN didn't have feet and were not able to run away like OBL. We haven't found WMD's for the same reason Iraq couldn't turn them over: they didn't exist. Period.

Not to say Hussein didn't plan to build them after the inspectors left, but they did not exist YET.

[bountyhunter]

Interesting. This completely contradicts his deputy prime minister, Aziz, who has stated that Hussein fully believed that France and Russia would prevent any invasion and that even if there was a military assault, all he would have to do is ride it out until the US gave up, ala the air campaign in the Balkans. So we have his closest advisor saying Hussein never intended on capitulating, and we have you and others saying he knew the game was up.

I thought you had to use the laughing smiley when you put up a joke answer. You had to be kidding, right?

Aziz is now trying to get on our good side, we have gotten his family over here and are offering him asylum..... and you are having trouble connecting that with why he would need to say whatever story dovetails in with the administration's version of the "truth"?

OK....

I mean, I can understand your confusion. It's not like Aziz has ever been known to LIE before when it was convenient......:what:

[DaveB]

I have a question, since the US hasn't yet found Saddam or UBL does that mean they never existed?

That was never the question. Never.

Common knowlege. He had them prior to GWI.

Not after.

GWII was sold to congress as "He has 'em now."

Lies.

db

[Gary H]

bountyhunter:

I have to agree with DaveB, only time will see which view is correct. My view is at great odds with yours. I don't believe that petty reasons motivated Bush and I don't understand how anyone can look at the map, recognize that poverty is the root cause of the Wahabi movement's hatred of the West and then fail to understand that no long term solution exists short of eliminating the oppression and relieving some of the poverty. Some will argue that a complete withdrawl from the area and the destruction of Israel would solve the problem. That certainly appeals to many in the world. The folks that died in Iraq did so fighting the war on terrorism. I have my doubts as to if a "democratic" Iraq will result, but I hope that it will and this will result in a positive change in the whole region.

[bountyhunter]

The insult is in sending our own soldiers to die in the middle east under false pretenses.

The people who ARE working to protect us were ignored and overruled in the runup to this war.


Let's be honest (we can because we don't work at the White House):

The people who should have been defending the truth and sanity in congress were not ignored, rather they collapsed like wet cardboard when GWB got out the big stick that said:

Anybody who doesn't back me is a terror lover.

The democowards in congress all caved in and hid because they were afraid of looking unpatriotic. Let's admit they were accomplices.

[buzz_knox]

But, at least it shows why there is no hope the Bush lovers will ever see the truth

So I guess you fall into the category of a Bush hater, and thus anything you say should be disgarded on those grounds. You see, the truth lies somewhere in between Bush loving and Bush hating. Given that you are the latter, you are by your own implication incapable of seeing the truth.

As for my statement, the point is that when you know something has existed in the past, the argument that "we haven't found it therefore it doesn't exist" is fraudulent. The point about not finding Sodom and OBL reflects the logical fallacy that you advocate: if we haven't found something, it was never there. In doing so, you have rejected the fact that: we know Sodom possessed WMD based on his usage of said items in the past; we know that pathological psychologies like his are not prone to disposing of means of power that have proven effective; we know that the alleged disposal of tons of this material, by the UN's own admission, is so poorly documented as to be incapable of belief. It is equally valid to draw from these facts that the material was well-hidden as the explanation that it was destroyed. However, your hatred for Bush means that you can't see this possibility of the former, and must adhere to the latter.

For the record, I'm not a Bush lover nor a Bush hater. I don't know where the WMDs are but based on reports (which have gotten minimal coverage) from intelligence sources familiar with the area, I'd say they were sitting in Syria, having been taken there on the convoys of vehicles spotted heading into Syria before the strikes began. But I'm equally open to the possiblity that the WMDs were destroyed. Why? Because ultimately it is irrelevant to the central question of justification. The world believed that Sodom possessed WMDs in violation of his specific agreements. It wasn't really a matter of general dispute, whether among the Democrats here who professed this belief, or even the UN who openly stated that he was in violation of his agreements. Did he bluff us? Maybe. If so, it sure backfired on him.

[buzz_knox]

Common knowlege. He had them prior to GWI.

And the common wisdom after GWI, especially 1998 when the inspectors left, was that he still had the programs. The Democrats said so, his allies (France, Germany and Russia) didn't seriously question it, and the UN generally accepted the idea that he did.

[bountyhunter]

Bush never went to war on the threat of an "imminent attack" from SH. He went to war to prevent the threat from becoming imminent. Good enough in my book, especially considering SH's history of lies and deceit.

Yeah, that's the part that scares the crap out of many people.

The acceptable reason that the US would go to war has evolved from 1940 to now:


1) Somebody attacked the US or an ally

2) Somebody was about to attack the US or an ally


And, now you propose that a sufficient reason to go to war is:

3) We think this guy might do something bad at some time in the future to us.


If you think for a minute about what kind of world rule #3 will bring in, you will see why that concept is not acceptable.

[DaveB]

3) We think this guy might do something bad at some time in the future to us.
If you think for a minute about what kind of world rule #3 will bring in, you will see why that concept is not acceptable.

I'm starting to see a pattern here among the folks who support W no matter what.

Take the Patriot Act (please). How many times have we read something like: "The PA doesn't hurt me, or hasn't yet, so I support it."

If we take a minute to dream about Janet Reno (for example) having PA powers - W won't be emperor forever, you know - the PA should make you pee down your leg.

Same with preemptive war - we've S*itcanned the rules,

now everybody can play like us. As long we're the only real military power in the world, well and good - after all, might makes right. Right? It's lucky for us that we'll always be the biggest kid on the block.

db

[CMichael]

Best come back yet, and an excellent point to boot.

Thank you Buzz.

All Hussein had to do was to to avoid being ousted to comply with the agreement he agreed to when he signed the cease fire agreement. He had to document that he destroyed all his WMD. He didn't do that.

And Pres. Bush never said the threat was imminent. The idea was to deal with it before it became imminent.

I am glad the battlefield now is in Iraq and now within the US.

[Obiwan]

The best I have read lately!

We had a vote last autumn about going into Iraq. The Senate decided overwhelmingly to give the president the power to go to war — and even earlier it had passed domestic legislation to crack down on terror. All the present screaming about illegality and the excesses of the Patriot Act cannot change the fact that the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary were all involved, as they should be, in the present decisions to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and here at home against stealthy killer-cells. We have had plenty of time for our versions of Bob Lafollette and Charles Lindbergh, who screamed long, hard, and a little dishonestly to keep America out of its two World Wars.

Yet when war did come, at least their frenzy ceased and the nation closed ranks to defeat the enemy. So when Gen. Clark implies that President Bush knew in advance about 9/11 or when candidates Kerry and Dean insist that the effort in Iraq is characterized by deceit, illegality, and corruption, they and all those who repeat their slurs have crossed the line, and will only earn the wages of a George McClellan who likewise slandered Lincoln as a warmonger, lost the election, and then rightly ended up in bitter retirement.

It is time for Clark, Dean, Kerry and the rest either right now to advocate legislation to stop the war and bring the troops home — or to simply be quiet and support the effort of our soldiers. Any further hysteria about purpose rather than quibbling over tactics, and the American people will rightly conclude that such Democratic invective hurts America and helps its enemies, whose entire strategy of assassination and terror is aimed at appealing to the anti-war movement in the United States.

Vietnam is much evoked by the Democrats, who apparently believe the country was lost in 1973-4 when they cut off money for further support. So it is now the hour for them likewise to conjure up that time-tested Vietnam remedy by cutting off the money, bringing home the soldiers and calling it quits. If they really care about the troops at war, they must either support their efforts or bring them back — but not leave them in limbo as they damn their mission.

We are in a war and we are winning due more to the courage and superb character of our soldiers than to the popular mobilization and engagement of the American citizenry itself. We have the best military in the history of civilization, but we can still lose this war — unless we remember September 11, acknowledge the awful nature of our enemies, and always, always accept the truth that civilization itself hangs in the balance.

[bountyhunter]

I don't believe that petty reasons motivated Bush

If you knew anybody from Texas, you would realize that taking care of somebody who tried to kill your daddy does NOT fall into a category of "petty".

poverty is the root cause of the Wahabi movement's hatred of the West

That is about 1000000% over simplified. The generic hatred of the west has roots that run back to colonialism and how the Arab states were exploited by "occupiers", it has roots in religion that run back thousands of years, the US governements blind support for Israel at any cost, and probably a thousand other things which most Arabs wouldn't even agree on.

no long term solution exists
I suspect you are correct on that point.

Some will argue that a complete withdrawl from the area and the destruction of Israel would solve the problem.

That's nonsense. The Arabs love fighting with each other almost as much as they love fighting with Israel.

The folks that died in Iraq did so fighting the war on terrorism.

I disagree because I don't define winning the war on terrorism as killing any Arab thug who likes to throw his weight around. I define winning the WOT as:

1) Cutting the root of money that funds Al Qaeada, ie ripping the guts out of Saudi Arabia.

2) Making allies among Arab states so they will start dropping a dime on the Al Qaeada people we really need to kill.

3) Stop peddling the message that Bush has been trying to paint with one brush:

"Terrorists declared war on us on 9/11, and now we have taken the war to them."

BULLCRAP. Now we have invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, run by a leader who actually hated OBL and Al Qaeada, and now that he's gone, it's turned into an Al Qaeada playground and US forces shooting gallery.

[Gary H]

bountyhunter:

I agree that blaming poverty is an oversimplification, but it is a reasonable place to start. I would like to think that there is some hope of ridding the planet of this threat and turning the desert to glass doesn't seem to be a good option...you are not suggesting this.

I'm 50/50 on Bush, but I do think that putting thousands of lives at risk to avenge an abortive assasination is petty. I hope for better in our leaders.

There is no level of support for Israel that will be viewed as acceptable in that region.

The "royal family" in S.A. is a major problem. Of course, there are many factions, but they have financed radical educational institutions around the world, including over five thousand "schools" in Pakistan. It is to their benefit that anger is directed outside of the country.

I don't believe that you have any long term solution. I do agree that much of the problem rests in Saudi Arabia, but to mess with them overtly would bring major religious complications. I don't believe that we will be able to take out the Saudi influence directly, but deals with Russia and perhaps Iraq with regards to oil will send a good message. If the Iraqi people begin to prosper, that will not go without notice in the rest of the region. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are key to a long term solution. You can kill these bad guys, but others will replace them. You must change the environment and that is what Bush intends to do. I hope that he acheives his goals. If he fails, I want to know what plan "B" might be. What other approach gets to the basis of the problem? This problem is now enlarged by the realization that technologies invented sixty years ago are beginning to spread without control. This may, in the end, be the death of us all. It is hard to believe that the nuclear/biological genie can be kept out of the hands of our enemies. I think that we can only hope to delay the day that we fail to deter, or eliminate such an attack.

Lastly, Bush has utterly failed to keep the public abreast of what he is trying to do. I think that this fact makes him fair game. If he can't convince you that he is fighting for our interests, why not think that he is evening things up for daddy?

[Boats]

Sorry, had to retrieve this for this topic:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=337857

I am surprised that Sean Penn did not come back with this backchannel offer to avoid the war as he went there to get the truth.

As noted earlier, we "avoided" the Japanese backchannel offers of surrender because the terms were known and not open to negotiation. Saddam should crack a book.