Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush Avoided Attacking Suspected Terrorist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lazydaze
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Goalie@Mar 3 2004, 10:14 PM
    Moe, the airstrikes were not succesfull at detering Saddam.
    Just one question Lazy. After reading what Mr. Kay had to say, do you still feel Clinton's airstrikes were unsuccessful?

    Mr. G
    Mr. Goalie

    I believe the bombings in 1998 were successful in hitting manufacturing plants that could be used for chemical and biological weapon production.

    I do not believe any of our efforts since 1992 have been successful in deterring Saddam from his desire to keep a wmd program viable.

    Regime change was the only way to ensure that. As we were told by many sources prior to 9/11. All of us believed that.

    Come 9/11, we were not able to hope for regime change we had to make it a reality. Because of the instability, the terrorist ties and funding, arms race with Iran and because of what Mr. Kay said.

    WASHINGTON: David Kay, who recently resigned as the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, said Tuesday it was “absolutely prudent” for the US to go to war there.

    “In fact,” he told NBC television, “I think at the end of the inspection process, we’ll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war.”

    “It was of a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas, and terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it.”

    Kay pointed out that prior to the war, the French, the British, the Germans and the UN “all thought Saddam (Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction. Not discovering them tells us we’ve got a more fundamental problem”.

    He said, “The tendency to say, well, it must have been pressure from the White House, is absolutely wrong.” Saddam “was putting more money into his nuclear programme, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile programme as hard as he could”.

    “We have collected dozens of examples of where he lied to the UN, violated Resolution 1441 and was in material breach,” Kay added. He noted that Saddam “had the intent to acquire these weapons. He invested huge amounts of money in them. The fact is that he wasn’t successful”. —AFP

    While not successful, the determination was there. One day he would be successful, and sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq and forced Saddam to enter the black market.

    Mr. Goalie, I have maintained this position on this forum. I will not argue vehemently if you detest the supposed preemptive action, I will not argue vehemently if you feel the timing was wrong. However, do not try to convince me that Saddam was not a threat, and certainly do not try to convince me the Neocons are the only ones who perceived him as a threat. All global assessments will refute any claim of this being personal. All of congress has adamantly condemned this man, highlighted him as a threat and advocated regime change.

    Leave a comment:


  • lazydaze
    replied
    BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) A Jordanian extremist suspected of bloody suicide attacks in Iraq was killed some time ago in U.S. bombings and a letter outlining plans for fomenting sectarian war is a forgery, a leaflet signed by a dozen alleged insurgent groups said. A senior U.S. official denied that claim.


    What is the truth?

    Leave a comment:


  • nick2
    replied
    phentom: I'll give Mr. Goalie credit. He was the only one to step up and answer the question about what Clinton's missiles accomplished.

    You could learn something from that, Nick
    I'm on Goalie's side.

    Jessep's blurb, before telling the hard truth, most likely seemed inappropriate to you!

    Leave a comment:


  • Damtoft
    replied
    I think they may have hit a few high value targets.

    Are you suggesting that US intelligence was good enough to contain him w/o the Saudi airbases and no-fly zones?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Goalie
    replied
    Moe, the airstrikes were not succesfull at detering Saddam.
    Just one question Lazy. After reading what Mr. Kay had to say, do you still feel Clinton's airstrikes were unsuccessful?

    Mr. G

    Leave a comment:


  • lazydaze
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Goalie@Mar 3 2004, 05:36 PM
    Moe, the airstrikes were not succesfull at detering Saddam.

    This is going to be news to David Kay. :o

    From THIS article:

    Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.) Kay adds that Saddam tried to resuscitate some of these programs, but—due to sanctions, fear of inspections, and lack of resources—he was not able to do so.

    Let's review, shall we? According to David Kay, Clinton's '98 bombing campaign destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons. Kay also mentioned that Hussein tried to resucitate some of these programs but he was not able to. Why? Because the sanctions and inspectors were working. Hopefully, this will clear this matter up.

    The airstrikes weren't successful? According to David Kay, this couldn't be further from the truth.


    Mr. G




    Posted 3/2/2004 1:33 AM








    U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
    By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
    UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

    The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

    The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

    Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.
    The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

    Many Bush administration officials were harshly critical of the U.N. inspection efforts in the months before the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that inspections "will be a sham."

    The Bush administration also pointedly declined U.N. offers to help in the postwar weapons hunt, preferring instead to use U.S. inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain and Australia.

    But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

    Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

    No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

    Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles.

    Demetrius Perricos, the acting executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, said in an interview that the failure to find banned weapons in Iraq since the war undercuts administration criticism of the U.N.'s search before the war.

    "You cannot say that only the Americans or the British or the Australians currently inspecting in Iraq are the clever inspectors — and the Americans and the British and the Australians that we had were not," he said.

    You kind of pulled that out of context. Notice the word deter.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

    The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

    "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

    Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

    "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

    "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

    Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

    'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

    Kay says Iraq war was ‘prudent’

    WASHINGTON: David Kay, who recently resigned as the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, said Tuesday it was “absolutely prudent” for the US to go to war there.

    “In fact,” he told NBC television, “I think at the end of the inspection process, we’ll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war.”

    “It was of a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas, and terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it.”

    Kay pointed out that prior to the war, the French, the British, the Germans and the UN “all thought Saddam (Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction. Not discovering them tells us we’ve got a more fundamental problem”.

    He said, “The tendency to say, well, it must have been pressure from the White House, is absolutely wrong.” Saddam “was putting more money into his nuclear programme, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile programme as hard as he could”.

    “We have collected dozens of examples of where he lied to the UN, violated Resolution 1441 and was in material breach,” Kay added. He noted that Saddam “had the intent to acquire these weapons. He invested huge amounts of money in them. The fact is that he wasn’t successful”. —AFP

    Leave a comment:


  • Damtoft
    replied
    >>A brilliant friend, with whom I work, told me right after 9/11 that we'd have to do 2 things...kick some Arab ass and force Isreal to play nice...<<

    Moe,

    Which of those two have we done, and why?

    Leave a comment:


  • Damtoft
    replied
    Comrade Nikolai don't do no steeenkin' questions.

    Leave a comment:


  • phantom
    replied
    Originally posted by nick2@Mar 3 2004, 05:44 PM
    Colonel Jessep: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"


    I'll give Mr. Goalie credit. He was the only one to step up and answer the question about what Clinton's missiles accomplished.

    You could learn something from that, Nick.

    Leave a comment:


  • Razzy
    replied
    Let's review, shall we? According to David Kay, Clinton's '98 bombing campaign destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons. Kay also mentioned that Hussein tried to resucitate some of these programs but he was not able to. Why? Because the sanctions and inspectors were working. Hopefully, this will clear this matter up.

    The airstrikes weren't successful? According to David Kay, this couldn't be further from the truth.
    Amen.

    Buried underneath all the lies, rhetoric, and spins, this is the bare truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moe_Szyslak
    replied
    Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 3 2004, 06:02 PM
    2 options:

    1) Re-evaluate and change the foreign policies that inflame the Arab world (ie: our relationship with Israel)

    2) Be aggressive with enemies


    I'd much prefer #1 over #2.

    But, if the political will isn't there for #1, #2 is a must.

    Giving France a veto over US foreign policy is a Rx for dead American civilians.
    I am baffled that we haven't paired the invasion of Iraq with serious pressure on Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. A brilliant friend, with whom I work, told me right after 9/11 that we'd have to do 2 things...kick some Arab ass and force Isreal to play nice...

    And fark France, this is about American lives, borrowed money and very long odds against ultimate success. IMO, didn't make sense then or now.

    For the record, I supported GW1 and the Afghan campaign...

    Moe

    Leave a comment:


  • Damtoft
    replied
    2 options:

    1) Re-evaluate and change the foreign policies that inflame the Arab world (ie: our relationship with Israel)

    2) Be aggressive with enemies


    I'd much prefer #1 over #2.

    But, if the political will isn't there for #1, #2 is a must.

    Giving France a veto over US foreign policy is a Rx for dead American civilians.

    Leave a comment:


  • nick2
    replied
    Colonel Jessep: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Goalie
    replied
    Moe, the airstrikes were not succesfull at detering Saddam.

    This is going to be news to David Kay. :o

    From THIS article:

    Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.) Kay adds that Saddam tried to resuscitate some of these programs, but—due to sanctions, fear of inspections, and lack of resources—he was not able to do so.

    Let's review, shall we? According to David Kay, Clinton's '98 bombing campaign destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons. Kay also mentioned that Hussein tried to resucitate some of these programs but he was not able to. Why? Because the sanctions and inspectors were working. Hopefully, this will clear this matter up.

    The airstrikes weren't successful? According to David Kay, this couldn't be further from the truth.


    Mr. G

    Leave a comment:


  • nick2
    replied
    That is false. We were given every reason. BY both congress and the President.
    Selective memory!

    Terms used by Bush team to justify Iraqi invasion: "WMDs", "Mushroom clouds", Imminent treat", "Chemical Weapons", Biological Weapons"!

    For the reasons your congressman has been telling you for 7 years.

    Enemy
    WMD capabilities/proliferation
    Terrorist ties/funding
    Humanatarian atrocities
    Blatant disregard for UN resolution
    Attempt to assisinate a former president
    Shooting at our aircraft
    arms race between iraq/iran
    instability
    destrucitve sanctions
    Completely and uterly false!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X