Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Correll]

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

According to the UN Res 1441 Iraq was in material breach of the UN approved cease fire. That means to everyone but the brain dead that you may resume firing. And, after several warnings from Bush telling Saddam to come clean, Bush did exactly what he was authorized to do.

Saddam can't come clean if he has no WMD. Come clean from what?

GW used 9/11 to invade Iraq for their oil, and even that didn't work out that well.

Anyways "UN Res 1441" isn't a valid reason for invading Iraq, destroying it, and getting 6,500 brave Americans killed for.

Nothing in your post addresses anything in his post.

 

[Mudda]

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

Then how do you discount these statements made during Clinton's administration and BEFORE GWB?

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people,
but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton (D), Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright (D), Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by (D) Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright(D) Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

GW was the one who made the final call after 9/11 to invade Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD. Bad call.

FACTS and REALITY are always missing from people like you. Is this your reality???

So you think that keeping nearly 2 million children from starvation was wrong?

You think keeping 28 million people who had a Gross Domestic Product of less then $600 per person in 2003 from achieving in 10 years a $6,000 GDP per person wrong?
And you also think that removing Saddam who In the two years of the renewed Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq has given Palestinian families more than $10 million, all according to a well-known scale. Families of suicide bombers get $25,000 each and families of those killed in confrontations with Israel get $10,000. Those who houses are destroyed by the Israeli military get $5,000 and those wounded by Israelis get $1,000.

So you're saying that the US should invade and destroy every country that's poorer than Iraq? Ummm... no.

 

[sarahgop]

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

Then how do you discount these statements made during Clinton's administration and BEFORE GWB?

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people,
but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton (D), Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright (D), Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by (D) Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright(D) Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

GW was the one who made the final call after 9/11 to invade Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD. Bad call.

FACTS and REALITY are always missing from people like you. Is this your reality???

So you think that keeping nearly 2 million children from starvation was wrong?

You think keeping 28 million people who had a Gross Domestic Product of less then $600 per person in 2003 from achieving in 10 years a $6,000 GDP per person wrong?
And you also think that removing Saddam who In the two years of the renewed Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq has given Palestinian families more than $10 million, all according to a well-known scale. Families of suicide bombers get $25,000 each and families of those killed in confrontations with Israel get $10,000. Those who houses are destroyed by the Israeli military get $5,000 and those wounded by Israelis get $1,000.

So you're saying that the US should invade and destroy every country that's poorer than Iraq? Ummm... no.

I dont think there is a place on earth where rubio doesnt want soldiers to die.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They ever voted for it.

Kerry and Clinton were going on the info Colin Powell, Cheney and GW provided for them. Which were lies (that Saddam had WMD). Clinton even said later on that she wouldn't have voted for it if she had known the truth.

The thing is...RETARD...they all believed it back then. You can't grasp it, we get it. Come up with some evidence that it was a fabrication instead of repeating your stupidity.

'they all believed it back then". So if you lie to someone and they buy into it (thinking you're of good faith), too bad for them? Ummm... no.

You haven't backed up your lie theory. You've had twenty years to collect the data but yet here you are still pretending you have credibility.

 

[Iceweasel]

Clinton was going on the info she got from briefings US intelligence agencies gave Senate committees she served on.

Yes, which GW and Cheney knew were false.

..and the evidence is.....?

LOL

 

[Mudda]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They ever voted for it.

Kerry and Clinton were going on the info Colin Powell, Cheney and GW provided for them. Which were lies (that Saddam had WMD). Clinton even said later on that she wouldn't have voted for it if she had known the truth.

The thing is...RETARD...they all believed it back then. You can't grasp it, we get it. Come up with some evidence that it was a fabrication instead of repeating your stupidity.

'they all believed it back then". So if you lie to someone and they buy into it (thinking you're of good faith), too bad for them? Ummm... no.

You haven't backed up your lie theory. You've had twenty years to collect the data but yet here you are still pretending you have credibility.

They didn't find WMD. Everyone knows it. Well... apparently, except you.

 

[Mudda]

Clinton was going on the info she got from briefings US intelligence agencies gave Senate committees she served on.

Yes, which GW and Cheney knew were false.

..and the evidence is.....?

LOL

... out there. But are you too lazy to find it, and when you find it, will you accept it? Veeeerrrrryyyyyy doubtful.

 

[whitehall]

President Bush sought permission from congress to force Saddam to follow U.N. sanctions and 36% of democrats agreed. Later the democrat party turned traitor and undermined the mission. How bad did Bubba Bill Clinton want to bomb freaking Yugoslavia?

 

[Iceweasel]

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They ever voted for it.

Kerry and Clinton were going on the info Colin Powell, Cheney and GW provided for them. Which were lies (that Saddam had WMD). Clinton even said later on that she wouldn't have voted for it if she had known the truth.

The thing is...RETARD...they all believed it back then. You can't grasp it, we get it. Come up with some evidence that it was a fabrication instead of repeating your stupidity.

'they all believed it back then". So if you lie to someone and they buy into it (thinking you're of good faith), too bad for them? Ummm... no.

You haven't backed up your lie theory. You've had twenty years to collect the data but yet here you are still pretending you have credibility.

They didn't find WMD. Everyone knows it. Well... apparently, except you.

Well yes they did. You are lost. But you said they lied and haven't supported it. Did you hollow out your brain with a bong or something?

 

[Iceweasel]

Clinton was going on the info she got from briefings US intelligence agencies gave Senate committees she served on.

Yes, which GW and Cheney knew were false.

..and the evidence is.....?

LOL

... out there. But are you too lazy to find it, and when you find it, will you accept it? Veeeerrrrryyyyyy doubtful.

You made the claim. A twenty year old claim at that. So no, I'll just laugh at the stupid jerkoff that keeps making the claim.

 

[Mudda]

Clinton was going on the info she got from briefings US intelligence agencies gave Senate committees she served on.

Yes, which GW and Cheney knew were false.

..and the evidence is.....?

LOL

... out there. But are you too lazy to find it, and when you find it, will you accept it? Veeeerrrrryyyyyy doubtful.

You made the claim. A twenty year old claim at that. So no, I'll just laugh at the stupid jerkoff that keeps making the claim.

So you're admitting that you're basically ignorant on the whole thing and can't possibly fathom what I'm talking about? Ok, got it.

 

[healthmyths]

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

Then how do you discount these statements made during Clinton's administration and BEFORE GWB?

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people,
but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton (D), Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright (D), Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by (D) Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright(D) Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

GW was the one who made the final call after 9/11 to invade Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD. Bad call.

FACTS and REALITY are always missing from people like you. Is this your reality???

So you think that keeping nearly 2 million children from starvation was wrong?

You think keeping 28 million people who had a Gross Domestic Product of less then $600 per person in 2003 from achieving in 10 years a $6,000 GDP per person wrong?
And you also think that removing Saddam who In the two years of the renewed Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq has given Palestinian families more than $10 million, all according to a well-known scale. Families of suicide bombers get $25,000 each and families of those killed in confrontations with Israel get $10,000. Those who houses are destroyed by the Israeli military get $5,000 and those wounded by Israelis get $1,000.

So you're saying that the US should invade and destroy every country that's poorer than Iraq? Ummm... no.

Well If you read carefully what I wrote..."You think keeping 28 million people who had a Gross Domestic Product of less then $600 per person in 2003 from achieving in 10 years a $6,000 GDP per person wrong?" you wanted to keep Iraqis poor?

It appeared just from IRAQ that by removing the people that screw up their economy, while literally screwing the people with drills...(see this story about the
dictator you loved: Human rights abuses under Saddam:

4000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib Prison in 1984.

3000 prisoners were executed at the Mahjar Prison between 1993 and 1998.

About 2500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a "prison cleansing" campaign.

122 male prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/ March 2000. A further 23 political prisoners were executed there in October 2001.

In October 2000, dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process. Some were accused for political reasons.

Women prisoners at Mahjar were routinely raped by their guards.

Methods of torture used in Iraqi jails include using electric drills to mutilate hands, pulling out fingernails, knife cuts, sexual attacks and 'official rape'.

Prisoners at the Qurtiyya Prison in Baghdad and elsewhere were kept in metal boxes the size of tea chests. If they did not confess they were left to die.

Saddam issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Those found guilty of slandering the President could have their tongue removed.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.


Obviously you wanted to maintain those human rights violations...
What really is needed is to have people like you that enjoy watching such tortures go live in countries like oh say North Korea where again like Saddam such practices and the standard of living is very poor. You enjoyed these dictators life style and method of governing you should live there!

 

[Iceweasel]

Clinton was going on the info she got from briefings US intelligence agencies gave Senate committees she served on.

Yes, which GW and Cheney knew were false.

..and the evidence is.....?

LOL

... out there. But are you too lazy to find it, and when you find it, will you accept it? Veeeerrrrryyyyyy doubtful.

You made the claim. A twenty year old claim at that. So no, I'll just laugh at the stupid jerkoff that keeps making the claim.

So you're admitting that you're basically ignorant on the whole thing and can't possibly fathom what I'm talking about? Ok, got it.

Oh, I understand. You fried your brains on drugs and are trying to relive your I hate Bush glory years.

 

[Slyhunter]

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

Just think about about it, the CIA couldn't find shit out? Their intelligence isn't any better than the Iraqi generals'? C'mon, seriously? So the CIA is as smart as a bunch of fat guys sitting around drinking and raping? Really?

The point you are actively ignoring is that the information was very tightly controlled to the point that Saddam's top generals did not have the truth.

Thus the "CIA was not able to find shit out".

Your blind faith in the capability of the CIA would be surprising if it was not so self serving in this instance.

So you think that the CIA has the intelligence gathering capability of a pea. I deservingly give them way more credit.

I would think ones own Generals would know more about what is going on vs an outside intelligent agency no matter how good they may or may not have been.

 

[healthmyths]

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

Just think about about it, the CIA couldn't find shit out? Their intelligence isn't any better than the Iraqi generals'? C'mon, seriously? So the CIA is as smart as a bunch of fat guys sitting around drinking and raping? Really?

The point you are actively ignoring is that the information was very tightly controlled to the point that Saddam's top generals did not have the truth.

Thus the "CIA was not able to find shit out".

Your blind faith in the capability of the CIA would be surprising if it was not so self serving in this instance.

So you think that the CIA has the intelligence gathering capability of a pea. I deservingly give them way more credit.

I would think ones own Generals would know more about what is going on vs an outside intelligent agency no matter how good they may or may not have been.

So I'm confused.

Because Saddam wanted the facade of WMDs maintained he never told the generals there were none right?
So why didn't he certify there weren't any thus ending UN sanctions that were starving 144,000 children a year?
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Or were there WMDs and by certifying Saddam would allow inspectors to find out if there were or were not.
If by finding them Saddam would be forced to give them up and thus be vulnerable to Iran,etc. attacking Iraq.
BUT if they didn't find them... again vulnerable to Iran,etc. attacking Iraq.

Seems like Saddam only out was to continue letting children starve because he knew his hostile neighbors would attack.

 

[TooTall]

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

576,000 Iraqi children starved because Saddam wouldn't certify.
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

But of course to someone like you that hates the USA loved Saddam and LOVES the terrorists that behead, use babies as bombs, YOU
believed Saddam...again even as 576,000 children starved but wouldn't have if Saddam had certified he had no WMDs?

Are you telling me you are as cruel and indifferent to starving kids as Saddam who need only certify to the UN there were no WMDs?

The big problem is the callousness of people like you who for political gain helped kill US troops and 100,000+ Iraqis, i.e. the terrorists because
you wanted political gain in the USA at any cost.

There's way more people starving in China, North Korea and all over Africa. When is the US army going to invade those countries? Never? Oh ok, then your point suffers an epic fail.
Anyways, if the US was so concerned with the children, why bomb to whole country to shit, was that supposed to fill their bellies?

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So fuck off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

 

[kaz]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

And?

And we got the biggest military blunder in a century

And you're ready to pull the lever for a lady who voted for it, turns out Iraq isn't such a big deal to you, comrade big guy

 

[healthmyths]

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Why are you expressing an opinion if you can't even do a simple Internet Search for say this question
" who was woman told Saddam go ahead invade Kuwait"

April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942) is an American former diplomat and senior member of the Foreign Service, best known for her role in the events leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But see this totally illustrates YOUR ineptness and therefore your gross ignorance!

Here is exactly what she said. FACTS but again ignorant people like you just jump to conclusions with no basis of FACT!

Retrospective views[edit]
In 2002, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs published a new account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting by Andrew Kilgore, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. Kilgore summarized the meeting as follows:[8]

“ At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts, such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means.
Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.
In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)

James Akins, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, offered a somewhat different perspective in a 2000 interview on PBS:[9]

“ [Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries.
That's standard.
That's what you always say.
You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. ”

Glaspie's in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

Wilson's and Akins' views on this question are in line with those of former Deputy Prime Minister , who stated in a 1996 interview with that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

“ In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.

SO again FACTS have a way of blowing apart false assumptions that ignorant people make with NO INFORMATION!

I don't read copy&paste long-winded posts. Now you know.

It has been rather obvious that you don't read much of anything but Democrat talking points.

Just condense the point of your post and then, if you want, post your references if I want to read more.

Of course you need the Reader's Digest version! You people only think in terms of headlines/30 second sound bites (Which are created by biased news editors/producers)!
That is the point!
Without closer study of the FACTS regarding Saddam/9/11 etc. you have ONLY the biased MSM input because YOU don't read more details which
are generally NOT what the headlines/sound bites consist!

Details are just too complicated for you.
Details like oh these DETAILS about Saddam and Terrorism.... too complicated for you but more intelligent less dense people will appreciate this:
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[Correll]

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

Just think about about it, the CIA couldn't find shit out? Their intelligence isn't any better than the Iraqi generals'? C'mon, seriously? So the CIA is as smart as a bunch of fat guys sitting around drinking and raping? Really?

The point you are actively ignoring is that the information was very tightly controlled to the point that Saddam's top generals did not have the truth.

Thus the "CIA was not able to find shit out".

Your blind faith in the capability of the CIA would be surprising if it was not so self serving in this instance.

So you think that the CIA has the intelligence gathering capability of a pea. I deservingly give them way more credit.

I would think ones own Generals would know more about what is going on vs an outside intelligent agency no matter how good they may or may not have been.

So I'm confused.

Because Saddam wanted the facade of WMDs maintained he never told the generals there were none right?
So why didn't he certify there weren't any thus ending UN sanctions that were starving 144,000 children a year?
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Or were there WMDs and by certifying Saddam would allow inspectors to find out if there were or were not.
If by finding them Saddam would be forced to give them up and thus be vulnerable to Iran,etc. attacking Iraq.
BUT if they didn't find them... again vulnerable to Iran,etc. attacking Iraq.

Seems like Saddam only out was to continue letting children starve because he knew his hostile neighbors would attack.

His reasons are pretty murky.

But Fear of Attack would explain his bizarre, self defeating behavior.

 

[Correll]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

And?

And we got the biggest military blunder in a century

And you're ready to pull the lever for a lady who voted for it, turns out Iraq isn't such a big deal to you, comrade big guy

Yep. It's only a big deal when they can use it against a REpublican. If not, then it's different.