Eskimo Jim
Member
Bounty Hunter,
Thank you for replying.
quote:
_______________________________________________________
Actually, there were inspections about 99% of the time and delayed inspections the other 1%. The point is, an Arab leader has to do some posturing when confronted with an affront to his authority if he is to retain the respect and backing of the military which kept him in power. If saddam had showed weakness, he would have been asassinated in a heartbeat (probably by his sons).
_________________________________________________________
The news that I watched through the 1990s routinely showed WMD inspector's efforts being stalled by Saddam's regime. I don't care what reason Saddam had for delaying the inspections. The bottom line is that the inspections were delayed by him and his regime.
quote:
__________________________________________________
Yes and the question is did thumbing his nose and being difficult justify a war? The UN said no, Bush said yes. We have all found out what a "non threat" his phantom WMD's posed, which means that Iraq did destroy them or use them up in the Iran war.
________________________________________________
War was the consequence of delaying the WMD inspections. THere were serveral, I believe 14, resolutions from the UN that stated that if the inspections did not occur as outlined in the 1991 treaty to end the Gulf War I, then the UN etc would take further military action against Iraq. The UN by refusing to follow through with the 'or else' part of the treaty made itself a paper tiger. With no real consequences to defying the UN resolutions, Hussein and his regime was going to continue to defy the UN resolutions and the peace treaty.
Think of it this way, you have a child that is not behaving so you tell the child to behave or they get a time out. They keep misbehaving yet you never give the child a time out. How long do you think it would take the child to realize that your words were hollow, without meaning and that there were truly no consequences to the child's bad behaviour?
quote:
__________________________________________________
It would be more accurate to say they saw their "duty" differently than George Bush and in hindsight, the saw it correctly.
_________________________________________________
I whole heartedly disagree. Europe caved in. Plain and simple.
quote:
__________________________________________________
You bring up a good point and urban myth: that the Clinton admin "did nothing" and the Bush admin has been effective in the WOT. The reverse is true. Several attempts were made to kill OBL under Clinton, even without the provocation of 9/11. Numerous Al Qaeda plots were foiled, most are classified but the car bomb headed to LAX was not. Under Bush, little emphasis or focus of resources was directed at the actual WOT (Al Qaeda). Even though the FBI had two of the eventual hijackers under surveillance as known terrorists in the US, nothing was done to alert the media or make them a high level of threat. Bottom line, Clinton hit all the pitches AQ sent his way and Bush missed the only big one (9/11)
_____________________________________________________
Actually, I wasn't referring to the Clinton administration when I wrote about the 'good men doing nothing' bit. However, since you brought it up, I will state that I believe that they did little to remove Hussein from power or to protect American interests abroad or to protect the US from terrorists. On whose watch was the USS Cole attacked? On whose watch were two US embassies attacked? I think that Clinton did more to line is own pockets, help his cronies and keep himself out of hot water regarding Monica-gate, White Water, billings from the Rose law firm, etc etc. However that is a seperate topic.
quote:
______________________________________________________
Except for one problem: the war being waged against the US is by Al Qaeda... not Libya, not NK, not Iraq, not even Syria. Our response should be directed at AQ and the country who bankrolls them (Saudi Arabia) and the countries that hide them (Afghanistan and Pakistan). The saber rattling and chest thumping is doing nothing but stimulating AQ recruitment.
_________________________________________________________
There is no doubt that Hussein's Iraq, Jong's Korea, Syria, Sudan, Libya etc have supported terrorism in the past and most likely support terrorism now. Libya had two intelligence operatives take out Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland. The US should direct its might towards Al Queda, all other terrorist organizations AND the regimes who sponser, support and encourage the terrorists.
In my opinion, there are two sides to the war in terrorism. There is the terrorists with the countries that support, encourage and provide safe haven for them. On the other side is the countries that will fight terrorists and their allies. Unfortunately there is a group like France, Germany etc that are unwilling to bear the burden and go through the burdensome task of combatting terrorism. These countries are the 'paper tiger' and are ineffective at combatting terrorists and their allies. It is this group that is truely helping Al Queda recruit more people. The Paper Tiger group is showing to the world that Al Queda and other terror groups can get what they want by employing their horrific and evil tactics of terrorism.
Bounty Hunter, thank you for an intelligent and well thought out discussion/debate. I do sincerely mean that. We might disagree, however I respect your opinion and your piont of view because it is well reasoned and polite.
-Jim
Thank you for replying.
quote:
_______________________________________________________
Actually, there were inspections about 99% of the time and delayed inspections the other 1%. The point is, an Arab leader has to do some posturing when confronted with an affront to his authority if he is to retain the respect and backing of the military which kept him in power. If saddam had showed weakness, he would have been asassinated in a heartbeat (probably by his sons).
_________________________________________________________
The news that I watched through the 1990s routinely showed WMD inspector's efforts being stalled by Saddam's regime. I don't care what reason Saddam had for delaying the inspections. The bottom line is that the inspections were delayed by him and his regime.
quote:
__________________________________________________
Yes and the question is did thumbing his nose and being difficult justify a war? The UN said no, Bush said yes. We have all found out what a "non threat" his phantom WMD's posed, which means that Iraq did destroy them or use them up in the Iran war.
________________________________________________
War was the consequence of delaying the WMD inspections. THere were serveral, I believe 14, resolutions from the UN that stated that if the inspections did not occur as outlined in the 1991 treaty to end the Gulf War I, then the UN etc would take further military action against Iraq. The UN by refusing to follow through with the 'or else' part of the treaty made itself a paper tiger. With no real consequences to defying the UN resolutions, Hussein and his regime was going to continue to defy the UN resolutions and the peace treaty.
Think of it this way, you have a child that is not behaving so you tell the child to behave or they get a time out. They keep misbehaving yet you never give the child a time out. How long do you think it would take the child to realize that your words were hollow, without meaning and that there were truly no consequences to the child's bad behaviour?
quote:
__________________________________________________
It would be more accurate to say they saw their "duty" differently than George Bush and in hindsight, the saw it correctly.
_________________________________________________
I whole heartedly disagree. Europe caved in. Plain and simple.
quote:
__________________________________________________
You bring up a good point and urban myth: that the Clinton admin "did nothing" and the Bush admin has been effective in the WOT. The reverse is true. Several attempts were made to kill OBL under Clinton, even without the provocation of 9/11. Numerous Al Qaeda plots were foiled, most are classified but the car bomb headed to LAX was not. Under Bush, little emphasis or focus of resources was directed at the actual WOT (Al Qaeda). Even though the FBI had two of the eventual hijackers under surveillance as known terrorists in the US, nothing was done to alert the media or make them a high level of threat. Bottom line, Clinton hit all the pitches AQ sent his way and Bush missed the only big one (9/11)
_____________________________________________________
Actually, I wasn't referring to the Clinton administration when I wrote about the 'good men doing nothing' bit. However, since you brought it up, I will state that I believe that they did little to remove Hussein from power or to protect American interests abroad or to protect the US from terrorists. On whose watch was the USS Cole attacked? On whose watch were two US embassies attacked? I think that Clinton did more to line is own pockets, help his cronies and keep himself out of hot water regarding Monica-gate, White Water, billings from the Rose law firm, etc etc. However that is a seperate topic.
quote:
______________________________________________________
Except for one problem: the war being waged against the US is by Al Qaeda... not Libya, not NK, not Iraq, not even Syria. Our response should be directed at AQ and the country who bankrolls them (Saudi Arabia) and the countries that hide them (Afghanistan and Pakistan). The saber rattling and chest thumping is doing nothing but stimulating AQ recruitment.
_________________________________________________________
There is no doubt that Hussein's Iraq, Jong's Korea, Syria, Sudan, Libya etc have supported terrorism in the past and most likely support terrorism now. Libya had two intelligence operatives take out Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland. The US should direct its might towards Al Queda, all other terrorist organizations AND the regimes who sponser, support and encourage the terrorists.
In my opinion, there are two sides to the war in terrorism. There is the terrorists with the countries that support, encourage and provide safe haven for them. On the other side is the countries that will fight terrorists and their allies. Unfortunately there is a group like France, Germany etc that are unwilling to bear the burden and go through the burdensome task of combatting terrorism. These countries are the 'paper tiger' and are ineffective at combatting terrorists and their allies. It is this group that is truely helping Al Queda recruit more people. The Paper Tiger group is showing to the world that Al Queda and other terror groups can get what they want by employing their horrific and evil tactics of terrorism.
Bounty Hunter, thank you for an intelligent and well thought out discussion/debate. I do sincerely mean that. We might disagree, however I respect your opinion and your piont of view because it is well reasoned and polite.
-Jim
