U.S. declined opportunity to avoid war

[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

 

[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]

 

[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

Could it be he is trying to enhance his chances

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

 

[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