uncle phil

"Maybe we should invade Europe for having a more stable currency."

oh, that'll work...

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

aceventura3

You have demonstrated nothing.

Let us be clear on one issue. You are wired different than I am. I have come to a clearer understanding of this since participating on this forum. Some people see the world in different ways than I do, than you do. I make an effort to understand how you and some others think, how you see issues and how you come to your conclusions. I accept that there are differences. And in the end, I ask how do we best manage those differences? I often state that people need to be true to their convictions, and that is why I get so bent out of shape over the empty rhetoric from Democrats. Say what you mean and mean what you say - and back it up with your actions. No grayness.

It is interesting, but if you ever owned tropical fish as a hobby, you know not to mix African Tropical fish with South American tropical fish. They are all fish that can live under the same general conditions, but the way they are wired and communicate are different. The signals they would send to each other would cause chaos. On one end of our human spectrum we have people like me and others who understand the communication of conflict, on the other end there are people like you who don't seem to understand it. I am not being judgmental, it is just a difference. Every day Saddam was in power he was communicating information, I read it one way you read it another. The question is who understood?

I don't speak for "conservatives", "right wingers", "Republicans" or anyone else. I know on this issue the way I see it is not the norm. That is why I suggest you question those more in the norm. That is why I point to "mainstream" thinkers and organizations for the reasons they believed Saddam was a threat.

The only way for you to understand my reasons for thinking Saddam was a threat is to accept and understand the concept of "alpha".

I know the immediate reaction is "we are humans, not animals", "we are not cavemen", or whatever, which to me means the person who responds that way won't understand. There is some truth in the quote from the movie A Few Good Men - "...people like you, need people like me...". Your current comfort and security is grounded in the concept of "alpha", even if you don't know it or accept it. Saddam's defiance was a threat and was not acceptable. His defiance needed to be dealt with. The world is safer and more secure without him.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

So what are we going to do about the United States, then?

Or is it wrong to take "alpha" to its logical conclusion in this context?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

You still can't provide any evidence that Saddam was dangerous. You've tried, but I took each of your attempts apart in a way that you are either unable or unwilling to respond to. Can you respond? Or will we get more "oh well we're fundamentally different" arguments? Are you a person who uses evidence or proof to support an argument? No? Then we're not different.

aceventura3

Starting with his invasion of Kuwait. The world requested that he not do that, he did. Defiance.

When he clearly had no world support and a coalition against him and he was sure to be defeated, he attempts to destroy Kuwaitis oil infrastructure. Defiance.

When he refused to surrender peacefully, he started lobbing bomb into Isreal in attempt to start WWIII. Defiance.

When he was subject to weapons inspections and was requested to destroy his nuclear weapons resources, he gave the world a big F.U. Defiance.

It goes on, you don't see the pattern, I do.

There is a right and a wrong. If the government of the United States is wrong, we, the people need to act. It is our obligation.

No.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I can take these apart quickly, too.
Again with the black and white? The UN may have said no, but the US gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. He was under the false impression that the US was trustworthy. Big mistake.
After the US back stabbed Iraq, Saddam realized that the US was trying to weaken Iraq so that the US could move in and steal the oil that Saddam thought he was going to get FROM Kuwait. He was understandably pissed and decided that his back stabbling ally wasn't going to best him. It was a move of ego and desperation, sure, but does that mean he was dangerous in 2003? Of course not. Not even a little.
Can you link this?

Do you have anything more recent than 1992, the time I said Saddam was last dangerous?
.... by letting UN weapons inspectors in his country. A few times Saddam "didn't fully cooperate" (which resulted in Desert Fox, on the same day as a huge Lewinsky story was breaking), but allowing them it was a huge act of good faith. The UN was clear before Iraqi Freedom that Iraq had no WMDs. Defiance? No, compliance.

dc_dux

the biggest problem (among many) with the Bush (and ace) cowboy approach to foreign policy in general, and overthrowing Saddam in particular, was that they completely ignored the likely consequences.

sectarian violence at a level never seen before in Iraq...and by some measures, more civilian deaths in 5 years than the 20+ years under Saddam.

massive numbers (millions) of displaced persons, mostly the Iraqi middle class

the worst public health crisis in Iraq in 50+ years

a new "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment

a stronger and more influential Iran in the region

All of these outcomes were predicted and ignored in pursuit of a rigid ideological goal or personal vendetta.

To what end?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

The point is not "taking apart" the pattern I recognized or using hindsight to say I or we ignored likely consequences of acting on the pattern, but asking the questions - is the pattern acceptable and what would be the consequences on a larger scale if the level of Saddam's defiance went unanswered? My view is different than yours, why do you keep trying to prove I am some how wrong?

People like you and DC have a responsibility to make your case to the people on the margins, my mind regarding Saddam was made up as soon as he attacked Kuwait. When I am open to changing my views I generally let people know, when I am not I let them know that too. In this case there was nothing that was going to change my mind, there is nothing you can present now that would make me think taking Saddam out of power was the wrong thing to do.

In 2000 and 2004 supported a Presidential candidate who did what I expected him to do, can you say the same thing? I argue that anyone paying attention could have predicted what Bush was going to do given the circumstances, that is one reason I am surprised about the degree which people say Bush "lied". And to this day I still have no clear understanding who in the Democratic Party really supported the war or who was really against the war (accept for Kucinich and a few others who have been consistent with their words and actions). I repeat, this is and was a problem, I think an important lesson from this is we need to have clarity on issues involving war.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

You're acting like this is a discussion about opinions. It's really not. It's about conclusions drawn from facts. I've provided many arguments about why Saddam/Iraq was not a thread in 2003. You have provided arguments but I've either demonstrated that they are wrong or they're referring to Iraq in the early 90s which is an entirely different situation than the one we had in 2003.
I expected Gore to fight a lot harder for what he had earned. I voted for Cobb in 2004, so that doesn't really matter.
A lie of omission is still a lie, Ace. He omitted all the evidence that didn't support the picture he wanted to paint both to the American people and to Congress. I don't know why you'd be surprised that people were and are pretty fucking pissed about that.
I'm not a Democrat, I'm Green. DC will have to explain his support of the Democrats in Congress to you. All I can do is tell you how much I don't like Cynthia McKinney and how I wish Kucinich would join my party.

aceventura3

I stated that Saddam continually acted in a defiant manner. Here is a definition of defiance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defiance

I saw his acts of defiance as a threat (fact). He did what he did (fact). I interpreted what he did as acts of defiance (fact). Your facts are different. You did not see Saddam's acts as defiance (fact). I understand how those who did not see his actions as acts of defiance, and therefore did not see the threat. However, that does not mean the threat was not real. Assume you agreed that Saddam was acting in a defiant manner. Would you have done anything about it, why or why not? If so, what?

I think the standard you set here is unrealistic. I think based on your standard I could find that everyone would qualify as a lier on virtually every issue they communicate to others on. Are you one of the people who are the cause of ladders needing a sticker saying that using a ladder may result in a fall?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I addressed that already.
You have to demonstrate he was being "defiant" first.
My conclusions are different because I'm using all of the facts.
He was striking back against the US, but the UN situation was a lot different. I can't be defiant against you because you're not an authority. Likewise, the US is not an authority over Iraq therefore Iraq cannot be defiant agains the US any more than we can against them. If you really want to suggest that Iraq was being defiant, then you have to equally say that the US was being defiant. Which I doubt you're prepared to do.
You have yet to demonstrate how Saddam could have hurt the US or our allies. Should I post the dictionary definition of "threat"?

aceventura3

Was Bush a threat to you (your well being, your way of life, etc)?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

He's a threat in several ways. First off, his policies after 9/11 have clearly caused global terrorism to shoot up in frequency. I'm not afraid of a terrorist attack, but they're more likely now. Second, his domestic spying has breached the 4th Amendment and has laid to waste privacy of many innocent Americans (considering my politics, they'd be remiss if I wasn't being bugged). Did I mention I'm no a no fly watch list (I can fly, but my name is flagged)? Aside from all of that his anti-free speech policies are paving the way for microwave crowd control weapons, which if used on me could potentially melt the Dacron tube which is in the place of my aorta (google "coarctation of the aorta" for my medical condition). My asthma is effected by the Clean Air Act. My posterity is victimized by No Child Left Behind. This could be a very long list, leave us say that Bush is a threat to me personally as well as the nation and the world.

aceventura3

Do you see that some one could "take apart" your points the way you think you took apart mine?

Given that you can see a threat in a manner that does not include the delivery of a nuclear weapon, you don't see the irony in seeing Bush as a threat (who is checked by the other branches of government) and not a guy who attempted to start WWIII? Oh, I know you think you need a "link" for that, but you really don't, and you never gave your explanation of why he was sending bombs to Israel when his cause was a lost one.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Not even a little. I cited evidence for most of them and if pressed could cite evidence for all of them.
This is an extreme case of apple and oranges and you're getting so far off topic it's silly. Saddam Hussein and by extension Iraq was not a threat to the US or our allies in 2003. Demonstrate otherwise with verifiable evidence or concede.
He wasn't as far as I know. This is why I asked you for a link. I'd like to research your claim. If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, you've got a really powerful argument coming your way.

aceventura3

Why not answer a question? Why do you think Saddam engaged Israel in the 1991 Persian Gulf war? Israel was not a part of the coalition, nor did Israel have anything to do with Saddam's alleged dispute with Kuwait. I believe his intent was to get Israel involved in the conflict to then develop an anti-Israel coalition of his own, which could have tripped the region into chaos leading to world war. People who are willing to act in such a manner are a threat to every peace loving human on the planet, including you. Here is a link, for what good it will do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War


After ignoring the above point, you can ignore this one:

When Saddam was faced with certain defeat, why do you think he employed a slash and burn strategy of Kuwait's oil infrastructure? Wouldn't a reasonable peaceful leader under the circumstances he faced, simply accept defeat and accept the determination of the UN and the "world" consensus against his act of aggression?

You would trust a guy displaying these forms of defiance, and accept him as nonthreatening to peace and stability?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

You mean the link in which Iraq didn't launch any missiles? The link to a wiki page that quotes an Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister in essentially saying "yeah, we'd attack Israel if anything happened" and when it did happen Iraq launched no missiles at Israel? Wow that's really defiant! It's also very much a bark being much louder than a bite.
Don't act like a child.
Don't you read my posts?
There is no such thing as a peaceful leader in war. Any illusions otherwise are naive. Do you think Bush was peaceful in invading Iraq? Do you even think Reagen was peaceful when he ordered the invasion of Grenada?
Trust has nothing at all to do with it. Why fear an angry dog with no teeth and no claws?

aceventura3

Here is another link for you, I used the previous one to show intent not to try to prove that Iraq actually bombed Israel:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm

This link will show you that Iraq actually bombed Israel and also their threat to use WMD.

This is interesting going through this with you, very informative on your point of view, I think your point of view is common.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

It likely is common for people who weren't even 10 years old at the time.

The Scud-B (the missile used by Iraq) has a range of 300km. Maybe you can explain how missiles fired from Iraq (which is east north east of Israel) managed to fly 500km to Southern Israel. Maybe you can also explain why Iraq didn't attack any of the major towns or cities that were within 300km of Iraq. Maybe it's because they weren't trying to kill anyone but rather trigger a response from Israel that would call all Arab countries to arms to defend Iraq, which was getting it's ass handed to it.

But again, for the millionth time, how was Saddam a threat in 2003?

loquitur

will, those of us who werne't 10 y.o at the time remember that Saddam lobbed quite a number of scuds at Israel. And they werne't aimed at southern Israel, which is desert - they were aimed at Tel Aviv and its suburbs. There were newsreels of people driving out of Tel Aviv and up to Jerusalem every evening, on the theory that Saddam wouldn't lob scuds into a Muslim holy city. And Pres Bush gave Israel Patriot missile batteries to try to intercept the incoming scuds.

and no, I'm not giving you a link. This is my memory. I have a pretty good one.

Willravel

Iraq was trying to draw Israel into the war so the other Arab states would step in and Iraq wouldn't be on it's own. Aside from that Israel had been attacking Iraq through the 80s, most notably in hitting a nuclear reactor in Baghdad. They said, despite evidence to the contrary, that it was for nuclear weapons and not power. Sounds familiar....

hiredgun

This conversation has gone... interesting places ... but in the interest of fact-checking, loquitur is correct about the scuds. They are a fairly significant component of the history of that conflict, and it took a lot of diplomatic footwork to keep the Israelis from retaliating on their own - which would have achieved exactly what Saddam had hoped by taking a contest over Kuwaiti national sovereignty and the rules of the world order and dragging it into a West-vs-Islam or Arab-vs-Israeli framework. The Gulf states didn't want that to happen either. This features prominently in any diplomatic history of the Gulf conflict.

Here is a link from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4588486.stm

aceventura3

For the last time, I considered Saddam a threat when he invaded Kuwait. His actions afterward further enforced my beliefs. I thought it was a mistake not to remove him from power in 1991. His attempt to start WWIII after his cause was lost and his continued acts of defiance were unacceptable in my opinion. Diplomacy, sanctions and threats had run their course, Saddam was buy ing time and redirecting billions of dollars from the oil for food program (He was not doing it to build palaces). The attacks on 9/11, in my view, created an urgent need to address the Saddam threat, leaving him unchecked under the conditions after 9/11 would have been a mistake in my opinion. I can not separate Saddam of 2003 from the Saddam of 1991. In my opinion he never changed, the threat he posed never changed.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Yes, but he had no means to attack. How was he a threat without the means to be a threat?

host

ace, Rumsfeld told congress, a month before Iraq was invaded, that it was about saving money:
I've posted the quotes (at least 10 times....)from Tenet, Powell, and Rice, from Jan. to July, 2001, all declaring that Iraq was weakened militarily, no threat to it's neighbors, and that the no fly zones and sanctions had worked to contain Saddam's ambitions. They all recommended "closely watching him", not invading Iraq.

aceventura3

Wars can be about more than one thing. Also, the motivations of "leaders" can be different than the motivations of the people fighting the war or the public support of a war. I gave the reasons why I supported the war, what Rumsfeld thought was not relevant to me. But the question for you and others is what motivated the people who are against the war to vote for it. You should be grilling them, making them accountable. Rumsfeld is out of the picture.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Sun Tzu

Aside from being against or for initiating military action to take out the Baath Party, what about the immediate upcoming future? The next Presidential candidates seem to have differents views about how the future of Iraq and America's involvement are going to transpire.

If we pick up and leave now, what does Iraq look like in six years? If we stay will we ever solve the issues that are present now; even if it takes "a hundred years" as McCain puts it? McCain maintains that we must "win" this war. Can the ideals that motivate hatred for Israel and the US be overcome in the region? Even our "arab allies" almost seem to be tolerating the US while if you are Israeli or even have that you have been there on your passport you are not admitted into Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. So with a best case scenerio, lets say with a gradual withdraw American troops are out over a five year period. Maybe 2 or 3 bases with a total of 4000 troops stationed there (which I think would be a mistake). Lets say Iran is bombed and the nuclear capabilities are destroyed. Who will it be after them? Does the US continue attempt to hammer down any attempts for countries that dislike the US and Israel forever? Would other countries stand for it? IMO the ideas behind what is causing the hatred must be considered and addressed. The founding fathers showed that as long as ideas fuel intentions- actions are present. Perhaps goals being met may never transpire, but as long as hatred exsists the "successful" actions in the eyes of terrorists will bring damage.

So if we have success in Iraq, whatever that means- will it last? Will Syria be next? Pakistan? Its been brought up here before, but the end question is what is the reason for the agression? Either facing that issue or accept the fact that miltary action will continue to be a part of the US exsistence in the region until one ideal is destroyed- is a reality.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking